Talk:Pelasgians/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Pelasgians was a name applied by Greek writers to one of most ancient peoples of Asia Minor. This is simply not true. Why is the entry on Pelasgians being slanted to conform to such an aggressively provincial point-of-view? This entry won't be honest until it can deal first with ancient Greeks' use of "Pelasgian". Then in a modern section, the entry could explain the pseudoarchaeology and race theory of modern Georgian academicians and why it relates to "Pelasgians". As it stands it is dishonest. If it can't be fixed, it must have a Caution sign.Wetman 02:27, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Pelasgians is a name applied by ancient Greek writers to a group of people who dwelled in several locations as neighbors of the Greeks, and spoke a different language. This revised formula is still misleading. "Pelasgians" is a name applied by Greeks to the autochthonous inhabitants of Greece. They did not connect "Pelasgians" with any peoples of Anatolia, except as colonists from Pelasgian areas of Greece. Some places, like Lemnos, retained their Pelasgian culture. Herodotus and Pausanias have plenty to say about "Pelasgians." Search "Pelasgian" and "Pelasgus" at the Perseus Encyclopedia. Greeks knew a "Pelasgian creation myth" as Robert Graves expressed it in Greek Myths. Whether Greek writers knew of this myth in a language that was not Greek-- that I don't know. Classical Greek writers and later ones like Pausanias mentioned localities where people spoke a non-Greek language in Greece. A handful of modern writers concerned with Urrecht bolster slender over-reaching speculative theories by co-opting a Greek name for pre-Mycenaean cultures in Greece. So let them go on with the theories as they like, but let us have a normal, sober entry on Pelasgians. Wetman 13:56, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dear Wetman, Pelasgians were one of most ancient peoples of Asia Minor! This is true: Pelasgians were pre-Greecian, non-IndoEuropean population of Aegean basin. They migrated from Asia Minor. It is not "pseudoarchaeology" and "race theory" of modern Georgian academicians! You know results of archaeological excavations? You know very important results of modern linguistic investigations? You know Georgian sources?... Levzur 16 Feb 2004

The appelation "Pelasgians" was only applied by Greek writers to the original inhabitants of Greece, whom we now would say were "pre-Indo-European". The "original" inhabitants, if that means anything. The statement Pelasgians was a name applied by Greek writers to one of most ancient peoples of Asia Minor is false. The appelation Pelasgian is currently being applied by a group of Georgian academicians whose "very important results of modern linguistic investigations" are so unusual, that Wikipedia's readers are owed a little explanation, simply as a courtesy. The entry as it stands is quite consciously misleading. The unspoken Georgian agenda is all about "proving" that Georgians were Georgians in Georgia from the beginning of time, is it not? That may be true. So were the Basques in Basque country, no doubt. Leave the Pelasgians out of it, and don't make dishonest connections, Wetman 04:11, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem with other articles as well...kind of reminds me of Chekov on Star Trek saying everything was Russian :) Adam Bishop 06:12, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Adam, Wetman does not realise that when archaeologists refer to ancient greece they are not talking only about one side of the Bosphorus. His comments are thus misleading.Zestauferov 09:55, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

When classical Greeks referred to Greece they did not mean non-Hellenic cultures in Anatolia such as Phrygia and Cappadocia (places that were quite "Hellenized" by the 1st century CE). They did mean Ionia and the Aegean. They didn't ordinarily mean the thoroughly Hellenic culture of Sicily and Magna Graecia. Zestauferov's contributions tally reveals whether he is ever consistently a contributor in non-contentious entries. Wetman 23:09, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Compare these two opening paragraphs. Former version:Pelasgians was a name applied by Greek writers to the autochthonous aboriginal inhabitants of Greece. The term is now being extended to include the pre-Indo-European dwellers in the Aegean basin and even further abroad. Georgian politician and writer Zviad Gamsakhurdia (The Spiritual Mission of Georgia) applies the term "Pelasgians" to the Georgians, one of the most ancient peoples of Asia Minor.

User:Levsur's version: Pelasgians were one of the most ancient, non-IndoEuropean peoples of Asia Minor and Greece. They migrated to Greece in the 4th millennium BC.

One of the sad inheritances of a corrupt and authoritarian indoctrination is the utterly cynical view that history is merely a tool of propaganda. Educated Westerners are disgusted by this approach. Post-Soviet apologists don't see what the problem is. Every word of the first text is careful, neutral and accurate.Wetman 03:01, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dear Wetman, Firs of all, I am not "Post-Soviet apologist"! I am historian. Main fields of my activity are: 1. source studies of the history of the Caucasus and 2. history of the Caucasian peoples. It is fact, that you not know important Georgian sources, investigations of Georgian scholars, results of archaeological excavation on the territory of Georgia and the Caucasus. Dr. Zviad K. Gamsakhurdia was outstanding Georgian scientist, not only writer! Levzur 17 Feb 2004

Levzur try very hard not to be taunted by Wetman's comments. He only does it te get angry responses and such behaviour is not worth wasting time and attention on.

The correction of the paragraph should have been simply to omit the part about the migration into Greece.

"Pelasgians" is an ancient Greek term for pre-Hellenic autochthonous ("aboriginal") inhabitants of Greece. Where they came from is debated by modern archaeologists. Their connections with other pre-Indo-Europeans, from Basques to Caucasian Iberia, are modern discussions. Modern Georgian Urrecht in Georgia is all-too-easily used to justify "majority" Georgian treatment of "outsiders" in Georgia, and make claims to be European, which will come in handy with the EU in the near future Wetman 23:09, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I've added an NPOV dispute header to this page. This article is a Georgian nationalist attempt to try to prove that Georgians are natives to the Caucasus region, an attempt that is spilling over into far too many pages. RickK 02:05, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you have to be so accusative, it is simply a POV from a different culture and that is all. Who is to say which POV is right? Scientific investigation alone. Zestauferov 09:55, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

User:RickK's NPOV dispute header from 18 Feb is still in force. This article has hugely improved, IMHO. Which statements still keep this entry from being a featured entry? When can the notice be deleted? Wetman 16:55, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have objections to dropping the NPOV header; there have been no significant changes to this article for over 6 weeks. -- llywrch 20:42, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pelasgians & Modern Cultures

Ugh. I've been accumulating materials to bring this article up to date, & one interesting fact I've encountered is that scholars of several different nations -- from the Georgian Republic, Turkey, & Albania under Enver Hoxha -- all claimed that they were the modern Pelasgians. And then there is Robert Graves' White Goddess, whom Graves argues at length was a feature of Pelasgian culture. Now they can't all be right.

If only I had to time to integrate this. -- llywrch 04:49, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Genetically the Turks are right. Science has proven there is no evidence to suggest that there is a significant difference in population of Asia minor now than from the time of the Hurrians and before. They simply changed their language. Albanians maybe the same but again their language is different. thus they can all be right from a certain point of view.Zestauferov 09:55, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. As I recall, there were three waves of Anatolian colonization by outsiders -- the early Greek, the Roman, and (of course) the Turkish -- so I'd think there would have been quite a lot of genetic mixing. Were genetic studies done to confirm the connection between modern Turks and ancient Hurrians, or was it something else? (And are there no genetic relationships between the Anatolian Turks and the central Asian Turks?) I'd like to look this up; do you have any references handy? --No-One Jones 10:12, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

unfortunately you have t pay for th full text http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=synergy&synergyAction=showAbstract&doi=10.1034/j.1399-0039.2002.600201.x&area=production&prevSearch=%2Ballfield%3Ahla%2B%2Ballfield%3Amacedonian if you are lucky you can sometimes find it on a google catch for free by searching the terms Hurrian HLA genetic turkish. :o) Zestauferov 10:49, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I mention the Turkish argument only because it is the least defensible. The Turkish people are recorded as entering the Anatolian region in the 10th century, at the earliest; the Pelasgian peoples settled around the Aegean Sea no later than 1000 BC. And the basis for the identification of the Pelasgians with the later Turks is based on one scholar's interpretation of an inscription found on the island of Lemnos -- which has been more convincingly connnected with the Etruscan language.

And stating that "Genetically the Turks are right" is disingenuous. With few exceptions (North America being the best known), the genetic material of the majority of present inhabitants in any region of the world is largely identical with the genetic material of previous inhabitants for thousands of years before; immigration & the displacement of peoples until recent times has never introduced enough newcomers to any signifcantly large area to make a genetic difference. And in the case of the Turks, it is not unreasonable to assume many can trace their ancestory to individuals who learned Trukish & converted to Islam, whose ancestors learned Greek & converted to Christianity, et cetera. From that perspective, of course there is a genetic connection -- at least for Turkish people in the Balkans & along the Aegean Sea. -- llywrch 17:03, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But the argument from genetics is very revealing, is it not! Urrecht Wetman 23:09, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

not so much urrecht as proof that conflicting populations (like those in the east mediterranean) are much more closely related to each other than perhaps they would like to imagine.Zestauferov 08:43, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Now that's a good point, Zestauferov! Wetman 10:40, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Modern scholars sometimes extend the term "Pelasgian" to describe the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of "Old Europe" and Asia Minor, even including the Caucasus. Such cultures occupied Crete and the Cyclades, but Greek writers didn't make a connection. What is not factually true, that this should be erased by Levsur, the Press Officer for Zviad Gamsakhurdia?

Please note that I am not "Press Officer". I am professional historian, PhD in History, Fellow of the International Academy for Intercultural Research, author of 70 scientific-research works in the fields of history of the Caucasian peoples, source studies of the history of Georgia and the Caucasus, etc. Your wording is not accepted in the scientific literature. Please note also that the first President of the Republic of Georgia, Dr. Zviad K. Gamsakhurdia (1939-1993) was a well-known scientist. Levzur 20 Feb 2004

Note to readers User:Levzur has his very own page among the Problem Users: Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users/Levzur will give an idea. His own user page will also give the reader a clear picture of this contributor's agenda.

---

My proposed rewrite addresses a number of things:

• Separates the fact (what do the sources consider Pelasgian?) from the theories (what do the scholars consider Pelasgian?);
• Adds items that are considered related to the Pelasgians;
• Adds more theories -- at least the best-known ones.

I removed some of the material in the Pelasgians == Caucasians theory because it didn't explain the arguments provided for this equation. (I would expect this to set forth evidence like artefacts recovered in the different locales that are similar, similarities in language or mythology of the two peoples.) -- llywrch 23:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Succinct appraisal from 1995: prof tells all!

Anyone struggling here will be surprised to read

Many (if not most) Georgians tend to suffer from a naïve belief that the frontiers of Georgia as presently recognised have always encompassed a Georgian state -- some carry this to extremes and feel that territory either occupied by any group of Kartvelians or subject to Georgian control at any time in the past remains in some sense God-given Georgian land. I firmly believe that part of the country's present troubles can be traced to this view, and external observers should strenuously guard against falling prey to the same assumption.

—B. G. Hewitt, Professor of Caucasian Languages in the University of London, adapted from an Oxford seminar lecture, "Georgia: contemporary life and politics", 20 May 1995. On-line lecture (excellent background) at http://www.abkhazia.org/georgia.html

The article of Prof. Hewitt has a very subjective character. He is a pro-separatist, pro-Abkhazian scientist. His ideas are not accepted by majority of other scholars. Levzur 22 Feb 2004

Do you mean not accepted outside Georgia or inside Georgia or anywhere?Zestauferov 01:40, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Both outside and inside Georgia. Levzur 22 Feb 2004

The linguist Dr. Brian George Hewitt, besides not being an ethnic Georgian, is "Honorary Consul for Abkhazia." He is indeed as critical of Georgians as his quote that matches our experience right on these pages indicates. Wetman 10:40, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm puzzled about 2 changes made to this article since my proposed re-write:

1. The addition of the sentence stating that the Pelasgians were "also one of the ancient peoples of Asia Minor." Obviously, the Greeks were also inhabitants of Asia Minor -- as late as the 1920s -- so I'm not clear why it is important to make this point.

2. The addition of material at the end of the article concerning the Halyzones & the Chalcis. At first glance, this seems to be irrelevant. (So Homer, who is cited in this article, knew about these people; Herodotus, who is also cited in this article, knew about the Egyptians & Nubians -- should they also be mentioned in this article?) How are they important? We can always have a link to the Halyzones if they are of some non-crucial relevance to this article. -- llywrch 00:19, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Albanian"

The discussion below shows a troubling confusion between the Albania of the Balkans and the Albania of the Caucasus (roughly modern Azerbaijan), which is ancestral home to speakers of Kartvelian language, not an Indo-European language speaking people. Readers will be aware of the disastrous prejudices of an ignorant few writing this entry. (Anonymous post from IP 160.39.247.237).

A failed attempt at confusing the issue here. "Modern Albanian" signifies Modern Albanian. No one proficient in English confuses Albanian with Kartvelian— the modern language of Georgia— which is intruded intentionally as a red herring. The Albania of the Caucasus is not at issue when the Greek usage of Pelasgian is discussed below. It's just not in the picture at all. Greek writers did not apply the term "Pelasgians" to the inhabitants of Colchis. The discussion below relates entirely to objections to the suggestion that whatever the Pelasgians spoke "might be modern Albanian"— which is poppycock. --Wetman 22:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"groups of people who preceded the Hellenes and dwelt in several locations in Anatolia, the Aegean and mainland Greece, as neighbors of the Hellenes. Pelasgians spoke a language different from the Greeks which might be modern Albanian." No, it just couldn't have been modern Albanian: even the possibly connections are conjectural. Can't we leave the distraction of modern Albania out of this already rather complicated and highly contended picture, please? Wetman 19:23, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wetman, what do you know about Albania and Albanians sothat you can argue so easily they have NO connections with ancient pelasgians ? Tell us please ? You have yet one point : it is enough a complicated matter which can surely be solve by modern Albanians who have kept since many centuries their own language which remains the oldest in Europe !!!! (Anonymously entered by User:213.246.208.166)

Nonsense. Albanian is one of the latest attested languages in Europe, and nobody knows what the language of the ancestors of the Albanians sounded like, at a time when the libraries were full of latin and greek texts, and even at a time when Romance, English, German literatures began to flourish. There is simply no connection between Albanians and the term "Pelasgian" other than pure speculation. Live with it, and add your knowledge to articles that actually are about Albanians. dab 11:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

( In fact the two modern Albanian language forms are members of the Indo-European language family, as is Greek. This was demonstrated by the German philologist Franz Bopp in a work published in 1854, I understand. The connection of Albanian to other IE languages is not very clear to this day, for Albanian is the sole modern survivor of a whole subgroup of Indo-European languages, which split away from other groups before the speakers of these languages arrived in the Aegean basin and the Balkans. The more naive among us imagine that because the root-group was separate at an early date, that means modern Albanian itself is ancient.

Actually, Albanian had suffered many changes from what used to be 2000 years ago (unlike some languages that are said to be old, such as Lithuanian). For example, borrowing from Latin "somnus", after the sound-changes of the Middle Ages, came out as "gjumë". Bogdan | Talk 10:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A few brief written records in Albanian are preserved from the 15th century, the first being a baptismal formula from 1462. Only graffiti and personal and placenames are earlier, though Albanian folklore enthusiasts attribute extravagant antiquity to the Albanian oral tradition. Of authentically ancient languages, the connections of modern Albanian to both Dacian or Illyrian are very tentative, though Albanian nationalists read a great deal into popularized reports of some fragmentary hints. "Pelasgian," by the very definition of the term, applies to the former peoples in the Aegean Basin and elsewhere, who were speaking pre-Indo-European languages: the only modern survivor of such languages in Europe is Basque— not Albanian. Albanian supernationalists are not the dependable arbiters of language history as User:213.246.208.166 asserts: for their fanciful boasting there is an Albanian Wikipedia. www.albanian.com provides some highly simplified basic information. Voegelin and Voegelin, Classification and Index Of the World's Languages (1977) is standard, and M. Ruhlen, A Guide to the World's Languages (1987) is somewhat speculative as far as linguistic supergroups are concerned. I am no more a linguist than our would-be anonymous User:213.246.208.166 let me add. I merely report the universal professional opinion. --Wetman 11:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) )

IAAL (i am a linguist, though not specialized on Albanian), and let me add to Wetmans entirely correct summary that many would not even consider the split of proto-Albanian from Indo-European particlularly early. The fact that Albanian is difficult to classify within IE is more likely due to its hopelessly late attestation, and (while there are vestiges of an independent IE branch) its heavy "balkanisation", meaning the layers and layers of transformations induced by contact with other languages. dab 11:49, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What are you trying to say Wetman that Albanians just sprung up in 1500 ? If so from where.... Hopefully dab you can wipe off some of those dusty layers of balkanization and find for the rest of us the treasure of truthXhamlliku

(Any reader who understands that we are talking about the late attestation of the Albanian language in surviving mss, not about people who doubtless trace their ancestry from Adam himself, will excuse me from reponding. --Wetman 00:20, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC))

All this Caucas bullsh*t

Is there any proof whatsoever of a link between Pelasgian and the Caucasus languages? No, there isn't, so what is all this mumbling and bumbling about. Decius 07:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

indeed, I would be obliged if you could clean it out. dab (ᛏ) 08:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've been wounded in previous battle in this very place, but I encourage you with gestures from my wheelchair... --Wetman 10:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Claim that Pelasgian is a Greek dialect

• User:128.113.201.75 inserted a claim that "Pelasgians spoke a language that was only different from Hellenic in a dialectical sense" etc. which I have removed as speculation. If there is any evidence for this or the rest of the insertion, let's discuss it in Talk before putting it into the article, please. --Macrakis 13:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Pelasgians are defenitely not Indo europeans.They are posibly from Balcan refuge in the last glacial maximum.Latest findings from megalitic culture in Macedonia and some findings in Macedonian tombs are pure proof that Macedonians and Tracians are descendants of Pelasgians.This is geneticaly acceptable regarding 20 % of Paleolitic genes in Balcan populations.These findings can explain closenes of ancient agean languages. - anonymous user
  • Some of the peoples Homer called Pelasgian seem to have spoken Greek; so did his Trojans. I think this is covered in the article. Septentrionalis 22:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That info about Thracians and Macedonians being descendants of Pelasgians sounds very interesting, and I'd like to hear more about the evidence. From what I've seen, Macedonians and especially Thracians are still generally regarded as Indo-European (generally). Do you mean only descended genetically or also linguistically? Decius 21:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not mine, and I don't believe that it is the sort of thing pre-literate archaeology can prove. Macedonian (and IIRC Thracian) exists in inscriptions. Macedonian is IE; the controversy is whether it is close enough to Greek to count as a Greek dialect. The present vein of scholarship is being added by someone who denies that Albanian is IE. <sigh> Septentrionalis 18:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know the situation concerning the Ancient Macedonian language quite well. I just wanted that user to further define his claim and cite evidence. I don't question whether ancient Macedonian was IE, but it has been questioned by serious linguists (forgot their names though). Also, Thracian may or may not have been IE in the classic sense---it is still being investigated. Decius 06:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous assertions

The following, recently added, seems unfounded, uninformed by reading the rest of the article, or already better covered:"It has to be noted however that Strabo is the one that does justice to the argument of the Pelasgians. According to Strabo the Pelasgians and the Greeks might have the same origins. It is Socrates who once said that the origin of the greek words and one might infer even the alphabet has been taken from the Pelasgians. Furthermore Pelasgians are identified more or less with the present Illyrian territories, which comprise up to south Epirus(present day Greece) by Strabo. The Pelasgians are also credited for the invention of the Olympic Games.". (Wetman 17:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC))

This paragraph also to be neither English nor NPOV; let him salvage from it who can:

However it is equally interesting how much attention scholars pay to greek government founded propaganda without even studying Albanian and relying on scandalistic comments about a member of french highest academia. Mayani is not the only person that linked pelasgian with albanian. In fact the albanians that live for centeruies in Italy and Greece believe themselves as the truest descendants of this pre-hellenic race. Aristides P. Kollias in his books writes that the Pelasgian race is the progenitor race of greeks and latins, and albanians are the only ones that preserved the words as studies from Vlora Falaschi, Giuseppe Catapano, Stanislao Marchiano, Jean Cloude Faverial, Robert D'Angely, Aristides P. Kolias, Eqrem Cabej and many others have clearly shown. Socrates as many others clearly invite the scholars of that time to find the truest roots of the greek words from the "barbarians", and in fact many of the persons above have clearly shown that there is far more similiarity in terms of structure of ancient greek with albanian or arvanite dialect rather then with modern greek. The theory of the symbiosis of races seems to explain remarkably well the so called doric invasion as well. Recently another french scholar, Mathieu Aref has explained remarkably the history of the earliest greeks, the so called pelasgo-albanians. (See references for details)

with regards Septentrionalis 22:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So who was Zacharia Mayani and why was Enver Hoxha touting him?

I googled "Zacharia Mayani" and got translations of the same nonsense entered here. Nothing else. Not a mention of Zacharia Mayani the famous scholar on all the Internet otherwise? And the Albanian boss Hoxha: why has he been deleted? Too embarassing? This entry is filling with various nationalist pseudoscience. What shall we do about it? I do think the modern nationalist "spin" is an important element: it may have more to do with post-Communist ideologies than with the pre-Indo-European Aegean. --Wetman 06:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know too much about Mayani other than what it says in his article, but he does not qualify as 'famous'. Origin of Albanians discusses some of this stuff in its Pelasgic origin section, though that section contains new dubious edits. Decius 21:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That article has essentially everything I could find on the Internet. None of it is confirmable. What makes Mayani a linguistics scholar rather than a journalist, for instance? --Wetman 22:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I looked through the history of the Origin of Albanians article and confirmed that the initial material on Zacharia Mayani & Hoxha was added into the article by User:Bogdangiusca on 19:35 28 Aug 2004. If I don't find info on Mayani later on today, I'll ask Bogdan about his source. Decius 22:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I punched in "Zachariah Mayani, Albanian" (added an 'h' to Zacharia) into Google and some relevant sites came up. Decius 22:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Even better seems to be if you type in Zacharie Mayani, a more French spelling. Decius 22:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right! I've even moved the page to Zacharie Mayani. Thanks, Decius. --Wetman 01:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pelasgians Sans the Indo-European Theory

Unfortunately, this article is quite dishonest in its description of the Pelasgians. What many people are not aware of is the fact that the Pelasgians were indeed Greeks, but of an older variety. Herodotus himself discussed about the Pelasgians and he deemed them as the ancestors of the Greeks. The link below should provide a sufficient enough synopsis on the statements made by Herodotus:

http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Heropel.html

To quote Herodotus: "the Athenians, who were certainly Pelasgi, must have changed their language at the same time that they passed into the Hellenic body." Based on the evidence available to him, the Pelasgi did not speak Greek. Septentrionalis

To quote Herodotus: "The Hellenic race has never, since its first origin, changed its speech. This at least seems evident to me. It was a branch of the Pelasgic, which separated from the main body, and at first was scanty in numbers and of little power; but it gradually spread and increased to a multitude of nations, chiefly by the voluntary entrance into its ranks of numerous tribes of barbarians. The Pelasgi, on the other hand, were, as I think, a barbarian race which never greatly multiplied."

Truly I am glad you are capable of reinforcing your counterarguments with quotes Mr. Septentrionalis. Unfortunately, you take things word-for-word too literally. When the Athenians "changed their language" did it necessarily mean that they changed it from a non-Greek language to a Greek language? No. In fact, a person can "change his/her language" by switching to a different dialect within the same overall language. Take American English and British English for example. Both dialects exist within the overall linguistic family of "English." Yet, many people consider both dialects as separate languages.

I recommend, Mr. Septentrionalis that you do more research on the social mentality of the ancient Greeks as opposed to engaging in a "quote war" or a "source war" with those around you. If one does not analyze the social environment and question the sources he or she reads, then one will end up making distortions of truth that are indeed harmful to the entire academic community.

Pleasure talking to you Mr. Septentrionalis. Later. - Deucalionite 7/16/05 4:35 P.M. EST

However, many will most definitely state in retort to this comment that because Herodotus used the Greek term "barbarian" (or "barbaros") to describe the language of the Pelasgians that the Pelasgians were non-Greeks. Many scholars (especially Western European scholars) are unaware of the dualistic mentality of ancient Greek thought. The term "barbarian" was developed by the Greeks as a means to deride any language (and any culture) for its unsophisticated structure. On the one hand, the term was utilized to describe non-Greek civilizations that not only did not use the Greek language, but also did not possess any form of Greek culture whatsoever. However, on the other hand, the term was utilized to describe Greek civilizations that did speak Greek and did possess a form of Greek culture, but both the language and the culture were unrefined to the standards of the Athenians (or at least more developed Greek societies).

There were instances where the Athenians deemed the Spartans as "barbarians."

Citation? Septentrionalis

Very well Mr. Septentrionalis. I shall grant you one source. From that source and the text it contains, I want you to do your own research. I am not here to engage in a "quote war" or a "source war" being that many have done so and failed to analyze history within a viable social context. Of course, there is nothing wrong with sources. It is just that too many people do not analyze the sources from their proper historical/social/political context. Here is the link:

http://www.globaled.org/nyworld/materials/greek2.html

I know that you will criticize this source (which is what I want you to do), and deem me as misguided for citing it. However, I would love to stay and provide to you more data pertaining to ancient Greek thought, but I expect you to do your own research (when you have the time that is). Of course, if you do have any questions about what I have written, then I will be more than happy to answer them.

Pleasure talking to you Mr. Septentrionalis. - Deucalionite 7/16/05 4:38 P.M. EST

This does not show anyone calling the Spartans "barbarians", which is what is required. Septentrionalis 21:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Must I hold your hand Mr. Septentrionalis? Do you expect me to constantly quote everything that I provide you? Fine. However, this is as far as I go. Moreover, the article I cited not only discussed about the Spartans being deemed as "barbarians" by their rivals the Athenians, but also about how Greeks in general derided other Greeks by calling them "barbarians."

"Prejudice toward Greeks on the part of Greeks was not limited to those who lived on the fringes of the Greek world. The Boeotians, inhabitants of central Greece, whose credentials were impeccable, were routinely mocked for their stupidity and gluttony. Ethnicity is a fluid concept even at the best of times. When it suited their purposes, the Greeks also divided themselves into Ionians and Dorians. The distinction was emphasized at the time of the Peloponnesian War, when the Ionian Athenians fought against the Dorian Spartans. The Spartan general Brasidas even taxed the Athenians with cowardice on account of their Ionian lineage. In other periods of history the Ionian-Dorian divide carried much less weight."

Let me repeat myself. Take the information and search for yourself the answers. I have done more than enough to prove my point. Greeks called other Greeks "barbarians." It was not just the Spartans vs. Athenians for there was a plethora of Greek tribes that judged each other based on their different levels of Greek culture and language. Even the Greek Macedonians were deemed as "semibarbarous." You really need to think a little outside of the box Mr. Septentrionalis. I truly respect you for questioning me, but there is a limit. Do some research and please do not always expect others to give you answers when those you question expect you to find out the answers for yourself (granted they help you get to the information first).

You may continue to question me at your leisure. Always a pleasure talking to you Mr. Septentrionalis.

- Deucalionite 7/20/05 6:37 P.M. EST.

This should not surprise anyone being that the city-states of Athens and Sparta were rivals for many centuries. However, does this prove that the Spartans were non-Greeks? Of course not. Granted that the Spartans had their differences with the Athenians, they still maintained their identity as Greeks (all Greek city-states were aware of their Hellenic ancestors, but were caught up in tribal nationalism until the advent of Alexander the Great). Of course, many will most definitely provide a response that encompasses the mentioning of the Olympic Games (first held in 776 B.C.) where only Greeks were allowed to compete and those that were excluded were non-Greeks. Well, the purpose of the Olympic Games was to help unite the various Greek civilizations (and city-states). The Illyrians and the Thracians did not compete. Indeed, many would say that the Olympic Games proved that the Illyrians and the Thracians were non-Greeks. However, both the Illyrians and the Thracians were indeed Greek, but their level of culture was low to the standards of those who did compete. The Olympic Games was more of a social club for developed Greek civilizations rather than developing Greek civilizations.

On a sidenote, the "Hellenizing" effects upon both the Illyrians and the Thracians did not encompass the assimilation of both populations that were supposedly existent as non-Greeks (based on the very flawed Indo-European Theory). In fact, the Illyrians and the Thracians did possess Greek culture (of the very rudimentary sort) that the "Hellenizing" effect was that of refinement in their cultural and linguistic faculties as opposed to assimilation.

When scholars discuss about ancient civilizations, they mention terms such as "Indo-European," "Proto-Indo-European," "Pre-Indo-European," and (most commonly used when discussing ancient Greek history) "non-Indo-European." Such terms all hail from the Indo-European Theory first developed by a British magistrate serving in the British colony of India in the 18th century. This man was obviously amazed at the greatness of Indian culture that he began to scrutinize the ancient Sanskrit texts. Based on his studies, he concluded that India was the birthplace of all European languages. When this conclusion reached Germany, it was transformed into the Indo-Germanic, Indo-European or Aryan theory, which dictated that India was not only the linguistic birthplace for Europeans, but that it was also the racial birthplace. In short, all Europeans came from India.

Do not get me wrong. I am not saying that the field of linguistics is not important. However, to base an entire theory discussing about the origins of civilizations on linguistics alone is wrong. The British magistrate did not base his conclusions on any archaeological evidence whatsoever. This, in turn, has resulted in the birthing of the historical falsehood of the Phoenicians inventing the alphabet and the Greeks adopting it from them.

Aris Poulianos (some or many will state in retort that he is a pseudoarchaeologist) and other archaeologists have helped to unearth many things in the Petralona Cave (and in other excavation sites) that should be seriously taken into account when discussing about human civilizations and about Greek civilization specifically. I wrote an article about Aris Poulianos in Wikipedia and listed his works in order of year.

Overall, the current article about the Pelasgians in Wikipedia is seriously flawed because it ignores the social mentality of the ancient Greeks and it is based on the flawed Indo-European Theory. I seriously suggest that revisions be made lest we forsake the truth for political correctness.

- Deucalionite 7/15/05 6:46 P.M. EST

This is unsourced original research. If Deucalionite can boil down this thesis into a paragraph, and prvide an authority for it, that paragraph will belong in the Modern Theories section.

The Indo-European theory need not hold, and now-a-days usually does not hold, that the speakers of PIE were a conquering race ancestral to all modern IE speakers. It is unrelated to the also dated theory that the modern (not the ancient) Greeks are descended from Slavs. Septentrionalis 18:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You want an authority? Very well. Why don't you read some works from Aris Poulianos who has a Ph.D in anthropology? What? Were you expecting me to provide you with all of the answers? I am sorry Mr. Septentrionalis, but I can only show you the door and it all depends on whether or not you are willing enough to open it. I do not know if you deem Mr. Poulianos as an authority (for all I know you expect me to provide you with a non-Greek Western European authority), but his works and findings are quite serious and should be taken into account when discussing about Greek civilization. I wrote an article about Aris Poulianos in Wikipedia. Why don't you take a look at it when you have the time my friend? It is not "Wikified" so bear with the imperfections of what I have written (though it is not as bad as you may think).

It is alright if you place my work in the "Modern Theories" section. It is okay if you deem my work as "unauthoritative." However, I have researched Greek history and identity (from all viewpoints), that most of the statements that I make are more true than false (I know what you are thinking, "big deal"). I am not saying this to deem myself as better than anyone else (I really could care less). I say this because I grow tired by the fact that too many lies and propaganda have been circulating around many academic circles that disseminate false information pertaining to Greek history and identity (from whatever time period). All I seek is truth, nothing more and nothing less.

The statements I have made about the Indo-European Theory may be unrelated to you Mr. Septentrionalis, but the Indo-European Theory (or whatever components of it you support) is still flawed in its origins. When you begin to study the social environment from which a source or sources come from, then come back to critique my work. In the meantime, disseminating flawed academic systems (even parts of it) is not good for those who wish to seek the truth.

The statement I have italicized above is unscientific racism. Fortunately, I do not agree with it, and am prepared to continue the discussion. Septentrionalis 21:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Unscientific racism? What racism? Sociology is important too you know. Moreover, you put too much faith in hard scientific fields. Nothing wrong with that, but you need to understand sociology in order to fully understand what your research is and in what context it comes from. How will you ever be able to distinguish between good scientists and bad scientists if you are not aware of sociology to some extent? Sorry to say this my friend, but your negative comment toward me is contradictory in terms of our discussion about the Indo-European Theory. The Indo-European Theory was first created by a British magistrate (who based his conclusions of European languages coming from India solely on reading the Sanskrit texts) and when it came to Germany, it became the Indo-European or Indo-Germanic Theory. Hitler himself sent archaeologists to find the Aryans in India who were deemed in Germany as a Germanic people. The fact that the linguistic conclusion made by the British magistrate became the Indo-Germanic Theory encompassing the origins of European races from India shows that your attempts at condemning me for "racism" are foolish. You need to study history my friend. You need to analyze your sources and question what has been spoonfed to you.

But none of this means that Sir William Jones was wrong. That's the racism, condemning his results because he was English and his ideas were used by unsavory Germans. Septentrionalis 00:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Your assumptions are quite foolish Mr. Septentrionalis. I suggest you re-read what I have written. Stating the origins of the Indo-European Theory does not make me a racist. As I have stated before, I am a preservationist. I do not have the time nor the patience to deal with executing acts of racism and dealing with the negative repercussions. I do not condemn Sir William Jones because he was English. In fact, I only challenge his work based on the fact that he only analyzed the Sanskrit texts as a result of his amazement of Indian culture and civilization. Did Sir William Jones combine his lingustic studies with archaeological evidence? No. I question Sir William Jones' linguistic assumptions based on the fact that his work was oriented around linguistics alone. Nowhere in my statements do I attack Sir William Jones for being an Englishman.

I should probably have said "guilt by association', but it comes to the same thing: dismissing Sir William and the Indo-Europeanists on the irrelevant grounds of their nationality (or politics). This is not a reason to discard Charonite's arguments, but it is an intellectual tort.

I really do not understand you Mr. Septentrionalis. You are attempting to label me as a "racist" in order for you to find a means to disprove me.

No, Sir. I will say again: I do not think this disproves your arguments, which I have read, and find confused and mistaken. Septentrionalis 15:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Confused and mistaken? I think not (another cheap shot remark). I have been quite direct with my statements thank you very much. I could repeat them if you like, but it does not change the fact that I have been direct with my statements. - Deucalionite 7/21/05 12:29 P.M. EST

You assume that I am here to destroy, vilify, and poison many fields of academia. Yet, all I ask is for an intelligent discourse about the flawed Indo-European Theory, which is the unfortunate basis for the article's explanation of the Pelasgians. No one wants to the take the time and read what I have contributed.

You truly need a crash course in honesty, civility, and more importantly respect Mr. Septentrionalis. I do not say this to belittle you. I only say this because your statements thus far have been quite disrespectful. Calling me a racist when clearly I am not is a mistake on your part. I suggest you rectify this mistake. Granted, I understand that you are experiencing Cognitive Dissonance (a challenge to your beliefs) and are currently in self-defense mode (being that you were taught that the Indo-European Theory was correct). However, you need to understand that I am not here to attack anyone or belittle anyone. All I seek is that knowledge be disseminated in an honest way and that my contributions be taken into account when discussing about Greek civilization and history.

If you wish to continue calling me a "racist," then do so. However, I will continue to change the Pelasgian article until people take my contributions seriously. Always a pleasure talking to you Mr. Septentrionalis. - Deucalionite 7/21/05 9:37 A.M. EST

I am not a racist nor do I ignore science. The fact that I read and analyze anthropological and genetic data does not make me unscientific in how I write. Granted my work is more oriented around sociology, I do cite anthropologist, archaeologists, and geneticists when necessary. Unless of course you deem that the fields of anthropology, genetics, and archaeology are unscientific? I respect your opinions, but you need to do more research my friend.

Not to sound harsh my friend, but next time, keep your political labels to yourself. Always a pleasure talking to you Mr. Septentrionalis. - Deucalionite 7/20/05 6:40 P.M. EST (Revised 7:17 P.M. EST)

Take care Mr. Septentrionalis. Later. - Deucalionite 7/16/05 4:52 P.M. EST

You believe the "IE theory" to be false. What do you, or Aris Poulianis, believe to be true? Septentrionalis

No, Mr. Septentrionalis. It is not that I "believe" that the Indo-European Theory is flawed, it is that I know that it is flawed. Aris Poulianos has conducted scientific excavations in which he has unearthed human remains in Greece that are older than the human remains found in Africa. This means that humanity did not begin in Africa, but rather in Greece. Had the oldest human remains been discovered in Japan, for example, then humanity started its existence there. I am not here Mr. Septentrionalis to push forth a Greek agenda. Granted I am Greek and am proud to be Greek. However, I have no right to impose anything on anyone. However, I do have the option of disseminating truthful information (after researching extensively mind you) in order to counter the dissemination of false information. No, I am not on a "holy crusade" for truth, justice, etc. I just want honesty to be maintained when it comes to discussing about history or whatever other field of study exists in this world. - Deucalionite 7/20/05 6:40 P.M. EST

How does archaeology have any bearing on a purely linguistic theory? Septentrionalis

Think about it this way Mr. Septentrionalis. Linguistic theory is dependent on archaeological evidence. If an archaeologist does not unearth an ancient text or an ancient slab, how will linguists be able to decipher old texts and provide a basic understanding as to how an ancient populace spoke? Archaeololgy is important and linguistics needs to be integrated with archaeology in order for its contributions to be of greater worth to humanity.

Linguistic theory is good in a sense. It helps create various scenarios of what people spoke at different times. Yet, it has its limits, I have to say. One should not seriously base the origins of humanity on just theoretical discussions. Wouldn't you agree? I hope you do. For if everything was based on theory, then what is certain in life? Nothing. Balance between the certain and the uncertain (order and chaos if you will) must be maintained in order for people to better understand their world and their place in it. Overall, the best humanity can do to answer its questions is combine tangible evidence along with the theoretical discussions.

Pleasure talking to you Mr. Septentrionalis. Later. - Deucalionite 6:40 P.M. EST

Do you deny that English, Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit are regularly and systematically related, in word-roots, inflexions, and grammar? Septentrionalis 21:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, English, Latin, Greek and Sanskrit are related. However, the source of these languages is not India. Moreover, Latin is an offshoot of Greek (early Latin was very related to Aeolian Greek for some time). Many languages have borrowed the Greek alphabet like the Etruscans. The Etruscans adopted the Greek alphabet, changed it a bit, and eventually it became the basis for the Runic language used in northern Europe and Scandinavia. Do research on the age of the Greek language/alphabet and on the Dispilio Tablet. Interesting stuff I must say. Oh, and if you still think that the Phoenicians invented the alphabet and the Greeks adopted it, then you are unfortunately mistaken. Whether you accept this truth or not is clearly up to you.

Do research my friend, if you want to that is. Pleasure talking to you Mr. Septentrionalis. - Deucalionite 7/20/05 6:40 P.M. EST

Charonite is mistaken on what the Indo-European thesis holds. I commend Carl Darling Buck: Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin.Septentrionalis

Nevertheless, insofar as he wishes to avoid the Great Blond Aryan Invasion version of Greek pre-history, I agree with him; and have modified the article to ensure it does not suggest it. Septentrionalis

If Poulianos's discoveries predate the first human remains in Africa, they come from multiple myriads of years before the Pelasgians, and do not belong in this article .Septentrionalis 15:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not just Poulianos' work you should seek Mr. Septentrionalis (though I doubt you would care to take the time and research), but also the work of George Chourmouziadis who discovered the Dispilio Tablet from the Dispilio lake settlement. The lake settlement is very old (5,500 B.C. to 5,000 B.C.) and the Dispilio Tablet too (7,250 B.C. - 5,260 B.C.). Granted, you may deem these discoveries as "unrelated" to the Pelasgians, but they are important in that it proves that the Greeks were older than what current scholars believe.

Moreover, my social analysis of the ancient Greek mentality has not even been mentioned in the article. Why is that not important Mr. Septentrionalis? Is it because it is not true? Or is it because you prefer to take things word-for-word instead of analyzing things behind what the texts provide? The ancient Greeks had a dualistic mentality that much you should know. The explanation of the dualistic term "barbarian" is quite honest, and it mirrors the dualistic mentality of the ancient Greeks.

You assume that I am unscientific. Yet, I provide you with quotes from the same author (Herodotus) and you ignore what I have written. Why is that? Does Herodotus disprove your current belief system? I mean, let's be honest, you provided a quote about how Herodotus deemed the Pelasgians as "barbarians" and how the Athenians "changed their language." I, in return, provided you with a different quote from the same author that states that the Pelasgians were the ancestors of the Greeks and even provided furthermore to you a clearer picture of the meanings behind the word "barbarian" and the phrase "changing their language." Word-for-word textual analysis is only good if you are seeking a somewhat general understanding of something. However, you need to go more in-depth to fully understand the text and its content (and how it correlates to the social environment it describes).

You need to stop assuming that I am your enemy Mr. Septentrionalis. I am not here to cause trouble. Thus far, you have failed in responding to my statements in an intelligent and respectful fashion. You need to establish a balance between open-mindedness and closed-mindedness. If you cannot, then you need to do so fast. Whether you do so is clearly up to you. However, I shall continue to make changes to the Pelasgian article until you take my statements seriously and not ignore them or use cheap shots as the basis of your counter-arguments. - Deucalionite 7/21/05 12:44 P.M. EST

It seems worthwhile to enlarge here. I am not Deucalionite's enemy. I do not wish to see him banned, or even continually reverted. He seems not to understand Wikipedia policy, or the purpose of Wikipedia articles, which is not to persuade the reader of the truth of any view, but to tell her what views are held.

He has not yet stated his views in such a fashion that I can understand what they are. If he will state here what is true, I will be happy to amend the Modern Theories section. It is only necessary to say what is true; if the truth disproves IE, or any other standard notion, the reader will see that. Septentrionalis 16:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Dishonest

I really do not see why everyone is so adamant as to ignore the ancient Greek social mentality, as well as the social environment from which many (if not all) of the ancient Greek sources cited come from. All I am trying to do is enrich the quality of the article and provide a more clear and honest understanding of the overall topic.

It is good to provide sources and quotes from academic authorities (be it ancient or modern). However, if one is unaware of the social environment from which a source comes from, then what good is citing word-for-word text that supposedly divulges a certain "truth" pertaining to the topic of the Pelasgians? For all I know, taking any text or quote word-for-word leads to the possibility of distorting the truth about history.

Whenever I cite something, I tend to provide a social analysis in order to give my citation more depth and meaning. Does that make me better in comparison to other researchers? No. In fact, I only say this in order to provide a means to prevent false information from being disseminated. Everything needs its proper context in order for truthful information to be acquired. Many people have cited quotes and texts and have completely misinterpreted them. This is not good for the overall academic community and that is the simple truth like it or not.

Again, I am not here to cause any dissonance unnecessarily. However, there seems to be a lack of honesty in how Wikipedia functions. Why is it that Wikipedia fails to take into serious consideration the archaeological evidence that indicates that the Greek civilization is much older than what many scholars first assumed? I wrote an article about Aris Poulianos and the Dispilio Tablet. Why haven't these things been taken into account when discussing about Greek history and civilization? Why is it that everyone is so adamant as to still follow the Indo-European Theory (which is flawed regardless of whatever alterations it has undergone)? Its orgins are based only on linguistics alone and not on archaeological evidence. If one would combine linguistics with archaeological evidence, then one could provide a clearer picture of what happened in the past. However, the Indo-European Theory is solely based on linguistics alone. Not good whether one supports the theory or rejects it.

I have nothing against linguists. In fact, I respect them for the time they take deciphering ancient texts. However, it is one thing to decipher a text, and it is another thing to base the origins of humanity on what people spoke. Languages change and although they help in understanding a certain civilization(s), it is not enough. Archaeological evidence, social analysis, and linguistics all help in providing more truthfully humanity's past.

Is Wikipedia just going to base its information on what Western Europe thinks is "right?" Is it just going to base its information on just authoritative works and ignore intelligent people who do not carry PhD's? Is it going to only cite word-for-word texts without giving them their proper context?

I have nothing against those who are authorities in their fields of interest. I respect them for their research and their intelligence. However, if an authority were to consistently ignore my contributions because I myself am not at the same level of academic authority as the person who ignores me, then there is a problem. I am not asking for academic authorities to forsake their years of research. However, I do expect them to update themselves with the latest developments in not just their specific fields of study but in other fields too.

Many would retort that I possess an anti-Western European bias. However, what many people do not understand is the fact that I have an anti-distortionist mentality. Distorting history leads to confusion, extreme bias, and other forms of propaganda that are out of touch with reality.

Indeed, I do not mind people removing my contributions to the Pelasgian article. However, those who have removed my work consistently have not explained themselves as to why they remove what I have written. I have explained myself in this discussion board and only one person has responded (better than nothing I must say).

I have explained myself, and yet people ignore what I have contributed. Instead of taking what I have written and analyzing what I have written, Wikipedia simply removes it. No questions asked. As if there is no need for discussion. As if my contributions are absolutely meaningless. "Wonderful."

I do not want recognition nor do I care for it. I want honesty to emanate from this article within the content it portrays to people who come to Wikipedia seeking knowledge, pure and simple. I will continue to post my contributions regardless if people find me as a "thorn" in their side.

Later. - Deucalionite 7/20/05 5:58 P.M. EST

Wikipedia is Dishonest II

Again, I am complaining about the quality of the article pertaining to the Pelasgians. No one has responded seriously to my comments, which I have provided intelligently and without disrespecting others.

Septentrionalis is the only one who discussed with me about the Pelasgians in this discussion page. Unfortuantely, he has either ignored my comments or provided cheap shot remarks that are completely unnecessary.

Macrakis and Adam Bishop should also take the time and read the comments I have provided both on the article and in the discussion page. I should not be deemed a violator of Wikipedia policy 3RR for telling the truth. I should also be granted the opportunity to speak to people who are respectful and serious in how they read and analyze other people's contributions.

I am not here to propagandize or aggravate anyone. However, I do not deserve to be mistreated for providing sensible information that should be taken into account when discussing about the Pelasgians.

Why is it that sensible contributors are deemed as "enemies" by Wikipedia and those who administer it? I want the quality of the Pelasgian article (and other articles that present false information for the sake of political correctness or propaganda) to be enriched. Nothing more and nothing less. Ignoring me and mocking me does not help future generations from learning about the truth pertaining to history.

- I hope that Wikipedia and those who administer it realize what they are doing as soon as possible. - Deucalionite 7/21/05 1:02 P.M. EST

Original Deucalionite

I do not believe that Deucalionite has been inserting OR, in the strict sense. He does cite a source, after all. The text he has been inserting will be reverted as unintelligible and PoV, but that is another set of reasons. I trust he will rewrite before he continues. Septentrionalis 17:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I will add that his last insertion is not only a polemic, contrary to Wikipedia policy, but in factual error: Isocrates Panegyricus 24 is not discussing the Pelasgians, but the Athenians, as the previous sentence, with tēn polin hēmōn, shows. [1] The claim about the use of barbaros has been discussed above. No authority or evidence has been presented. Septentrionalis 18:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Isocrates' "Panegyricus" indeed discusses about the Athenians. Yet, if the Athenians were deemed authochthonous and at the same time the Pelasgians were deemed authochthonous (by the article in Wikipedia), then it would be safe to assert that the Athenians were the descendants of the Pelasgians. Combine Isocrates' work with Herodotus' statements about the Hellenic being a branch of the Pelasgic and you have a serious argument there.

By the same logic:

• • • Beer is alcoholic
    • Ouzo is alcoholic
    • Therefore ouzo is beer

Aristotle would be embarassed Septentrionalis 02:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Logic Mr. Septentrionalis is not a simple step-by-step process. When it comes to ancient Greek thought, logic is both simple and complicated intertwined in a dualistic fashion. Aristotle would be ashamed of you being that you cannot take things seriously or at least provide a serious counterargument.

• • • • Isocrates considered the Athenians as autochthonous.
      • Wikipedia considers the Pelasgians as autochthonous.
      • How many autochthonous people can there possibly be?
      • Define autochthonous (one native source from which all else comes from).
      • If Athenians and Pelasgians are so different, then how can they both be autochthonous being that the Pelasgians were older than the Athenians?
      • Hmmmm.
      • Could it be that the Pelasgians were the ancestors of the Athenians?
      • Hmmmm.
      • Could it be that the Pelasgians were the ancestors of many other Greek tribes?
      • Hmmmm.

You see Mr. Septentrionalis, you need to do this silly little thing called "thinking." Not blindly assuming, not blindly accepting, not falsifying, not cussing, not barking, just thinking. Your "logic" is childish to say the least. You speak of ouzo and beer when we are supposed to discuss about ancient civilizations. I think you drank too much ouzo and beer to even realize what is going on around you. My logic is comparative and flexible while at the same time respectful of the established knowledge of previous academics. Yet at the same time, I question even the established knowledge in light of new physical evidence. You, on the other hand, fail to take things seriously. Some academic you are. Since you cannot take anything seriously and your "logic" is so absolute, then do me a favor and say "cheers" as you drink to your ignorance. Deucalionite 8/11/05 12:15 P.M. EST

As for the use of the term "barbaros," there is evidence Mr. Septentrionalis. You are just too blind to see it in front of you.

The source entitled Foreigners and Barbarians cites an important Athenian orator, which I am sure you are aware of, named Demosthenes. Now Demosthenes criticized King Phillip and stated the following in his work the "Third Phillipic,"

"He's so far from being a Greek or having the remotest connection with us Greeks that he doesn't even come from a country with a name that's respected. He's a rotten Macedonian and it wasn't long ago that you couldn't even buy a decent slave from Macedon."

Now, the term "barbarian" was used to stereotype non-Greeks for their language and culture. Yet, the Macedonians were an ancient Greek civilization. How is it that the stereotypical definition for the term "barbarian" (meaning non-Greek) be also used to deride Greeks?

You will say of course that Demosthenes does not explicitly use the term "barbarian." And yet, he describes the Macedonians as everything a stereotypical barbarians should be (i.e. unrelated to Greek civilization).

Demosthenes implied that the Macedonians were non-Greek in his work contrary to reality, which shows that the Macedonians were in fact Greeks. So why did Demosthenes call the Macedonians non-Greeks? It was because one Greek civilization would deem itself the high standard of Greek culture/language and mock other Greeks for not following suit.

• • • Demosthenes says Macedonians are non-Greek
    • Therefore Nacedonians are Greek. Oh, come on now! Septentrionalis 02:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• • • • "Come on now" yourself Mr. Septentrionalis. Obviously you are too blind to read and learn based on the statements I have made. Is ignorance the banner that you wave every day? Please wake up and stop making foolish assumptions based on your so-called "logic."

• • • • Do you agree that many Greeks fought against other Greeks in ancient Greek history? If you say no, then you are obviously unaware of Greek history. If the Greeks had civil wars constantly, then what stopped one Greek tribe from mocking another Greek tribe if it meant enhancing a Greek tribe's chances of becoming the dominant Greek civilization in the Greek world? Think about it Mr. Septentrionalis. Think. Don't find a way to refute something right off the bat, think about it first.

• • • • Let me repeat myself clearly. Greeks called other Greeks "barbarians" because some Greek civilizations considered themselves better than other Greek civilizations. The Macedonians were Greeks and yet Demosthenes considered them as non-Greeks. Moreover, other Greeks called the Macedonians semibarbaric. Why? Competition between Greeks. Simple. I hope your "logic" can comprehend this fact of ancient Greek life.

• • • • Gee, I wonder why Demosthenes considered the Macedonians non-Greeks? Could it be because the Macedonians were indeed Greeks, but that the Macedonians were not the same Greeks on the same cultural and linguistic level as the Athenians? Hmmmm. Makes you wonder. Of course, your "logic" entails the following:

• • • • 1) What I am spoonfed, I shall consume.
      • 2) Evidence is better without its proper social context.
      • 3) I take sources word-for-word without questioning them (so simple, anyone can do this).
      • 4) Everything academic authorities state is absolute truth; they are not liable to making mistakes or deliberately falsifying information.

• • • • I mean no offense with what I have stated Mr. Septentrionalis, but the archaeological evidence is right under your nose. Serious archaeological evidence. Moreover, the social analysis of ancient Greek texts/mentality I provided was quite an eye-opener in comparison to your word-for-word analysis of ancient Greek texts. However, your "logic" would reject both things because they does not conform to your beliefs. I thought you were supposed to be "unbiased." Guess I was wrong. Deucalionite 8/11/05 11:59 A.M. EST

There are many other sources that show what Greeks called other Greeks. I could show them to you if you like, but I doubt you will consider them being that you are the supposed "expert" on the ancient Greek social mentality.

Also Mr. Septentrionalis, I am still disappointed in the archaeological evidence being ignored by you and others who do not want to accept the fact that the Indo-European Theory is flawed.

I could provide the archaeological sources again, but I think I am going to try a different approach.

Go to this website (if you care that is), Historical Divide: Archaeology and Literature. Granted this source is Hindu, it is very intelligent and very neutral. Things that Wikipedia is looking for when it comes to information, right?

Since you like quotes and citations so much Mr. Septentrionalis, why don't I provide you with the information that can help you realize that the Indo-European Theory is flawed.

Quote 1 - "What is remarkable in all this is the fact that the foundations of ancient Indian history were being laid by scholars who were not historians but linguists. In keeping with the political conditions of the age — the heyday of European colonialism — it was inevitable that colonial and Christian missionary interests should have intruded on their work."

Quote 2 - "Several historians have rightly expressed concern that history may soon be written by individuals who lack the necessary knowledge of the historical method. But far more serious is the fact that what is found in textbooks today is based on theories created by men and women who had no qualifications to write about them. They are based not on the primary sources, but explanations that seek to fit the data to a particular Nineteenth century worldview — the Eurocolonial."

Quote 3 - "This is not to suggest that we should either deny or reject the findings of Western scholarship. Only we should not accept them uncritically as authority figures. They were products of their time and environment and the resulting weaknesses should be recognised. Their contributions remain substantial, but cannot be treated as primary knowledge."

The last quote is meant to ensure that your attempts at ignoring this source for not being neutral are completely hindered.

I want you to read the entire article Mr. Septentrionalis. The Indo-European Theory not only distorts Greek history, but the histories of other great civilizations.

Enjoy. Oh, and I will make changes to the Pelasgian article again. You can ban me if you want. But the evidence is right in front of you Mr. Septentrionalis. My contributions have still been ignored. The more you ignore the evidence, the more compelling the evidence becomes. It is really that simple. - Deucalionite 7/27/05 8:00 P.M. EST

• • • Briefly, I expect. Please consider my advice, and put down here a short, clear statement of what the truth is. Remember, most people have no idea what Poulianos's Stone is, or what's on it. Don't try to prove it, or convince me. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you do, and I can understand it, I will put it under Modern Theories, and defend it. It will stay in the article. Won't that be more fun?

Trying to be helpful Septentrionalis 02:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"Barbarians" in Greek usage

I believe the following statement is incorrect and should be more carefully edited for this article: "the term "barbarian" has been used by Greek tribes/city-states to deride other Greek tribes/city-states that were deemed unsophisticated in their use of the Greek language/culture (Foreigners and Barbarians)" When Athenian Demosthenes attacks [[Philipp II of Macedon, it is as a foreigner, an alien, hence the heading "Foreigners and Barbarians". In the Third Philippic 31, which is quoted in the reference, Demosthenes makes the usual distinction made by Greeks: "not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave.' Demosthenes establishes three categories, and excludes Macedonians, the lowest of the low according to his harangue, from all of them. Macedonians, only recently Hellenized when Demosthenes harangued, might be coarse and alien, but they were not barbarians, as Demosthenes distinguishes them. --Wetman 05:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The Macedonians were Greeks and they were definitely not non-Greeks to begin with that underwent "Hellenization." Granted the Macedonian culture/language was not as sophisticated as that of Athens, it does not change the fact that the Macedonians were Greeks. When Demosthenes went to Macedonia from Athens, he saw a Greek civilization that was not as developed in comparison to Athens. Being that the Athenians deemed themselves the highest standard in Greek culture/language, one should not be surprised to find Demosthenes mocking the Macedonians up to the point where he would deem them as "non-Greek." Yet, when Demosthenes called the Macedonians "non-Greek" he was implying that the Macedonians were "non-Athenian." Why? Again, because the Athenians deemed themselves as the highest standard of Greek culture, language, and civilization. If a Greek civilization did not have the same level of development as that of Athens, then that civilization would be deemed as "barbaric."

I think the statement you quoted is fine and you should leave it alone. Greeks called each other "barbarians" because Greeks were always competing to see who would claim the entire Greek world. It is not all that surprising if you think about it. Even the Macedonians were called "semibarbaric" by other Greeks that were more developed than the Macedonians. Of course, jealousy should never be ruled out as many Greek tribes/city-states/civilizations (both developed and developing) derided each other politically as much as they fought each other militarily. Deucalionite 8/13/05 9:15 A.M. EST

Demosthenes makes his categories quite clear: it's often better to quote directly that to manipulate paraphrases. "The Macedonians were Greeks" is an undisputed axiom of current Greek politics. There's no reason for modern Greek political agendas to warp a neutral understanding of history, based on reading. Nobody's saying that Macedonians are not now Greeks, or denying that they were thoroughly Greek by the 3rd century BCE. But Demosthenes' quote makes the three Hellenic categories perfectly clear-- though to make a sarcastic point he denies that Philip's Macedonians belong to any of them. --Wetman 23:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Well Wetman, there is nothing wrong with quoting things directly. However, one should quote things within their proper social context in order to enrich the information that is extracted. You must be able to understand how the author(s) of the source/quote cited thought in order to better understand the meaning(s) of the source/quote.

"Mean what you say and say what you mean" cannot always apply when dealing with primary/secondary sources and direct quotes. Granted that records of historical events are good, but without an analysis of the social context from which the records come from, then the records cannot be as reliable as many would assume.

As for the phrase "Macedonians were Greeks" it is not an axiom of modern Greek political agendas. Modern Greek political agendas only amplified the explicit meaning behind the phrase in light of F.Y.R.O.M.'s unsubstantiated claims to Macedonian (and Greek) history. The Macedonians were always deemed as Greeks even before the creation of F.Y.R.O.M. in 1945, as well as before the Cold War politics bent on turning Greece into a Soviet communist satellite.

Demosthenes had an Athenian bias. One should be aware of that. The Athenians deemed themselves as the high standard of Greek culture and civilization. All other Greek tribes that did not possess the same Greek cultural/linguistic standards as the Athenians were deemed as "barbarians" (or "semi-barbaric" in some cases) and even "non-Greek." Greeks were always competing to see who was the best to govern the entire Greek world. One should not be surprised if Greeks called other Greeks "non-Greek." In a sense, when Demosthenes deemed the Macedonians as unrelated to the Greeks, he was implying that they were non-Athenians or unlike the "true Greeks," which the Athenians considered themselves to be.

I am not manipulating phrases or paraphrasing words to suit my own needs. I am only placing what is cited within its proper social context. Anyone can cite anything and anyone can quote anything directly. Yet, even those who cite sources directly and quote things directly have misinterpreted what they cited because they failed to place their sources/quotes in their proper social context. One should be able to both directly show their sources/quotes and ensure that the sources/quotes cited are shown in conjunction to how the sources/quotes came into development based on events in the given social environment. Deucalionite 8/15/05 11:35 A.M. EST

(Wetman has already made his point.)

Revision

I have now carefully revised all edits, working forward edit by edit from 16 July, hoping that the result will satisfy all, though not of course Deucalionite who persists in the same misunderstanding he entered 16 July concerning " the dualistic meaning behind the term "barbarian" used by ancient Greek writers". This "dual" usage is not borne out by the sources, nor by any cultural historian. It is of a piece with Deucalionite's reconfiguration of "a period in academic history where scholars concluded that the Phoenicians invented the Greek alphabet and that the Greeks adopted it from them (when in reality, it was the other way around)." Taking this stuff seriously has caused the pointless battles over the article. Deucalionite's quotes of Herodotus and Isocrates have been retained. --Wetman 23:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well Wetman, for one to understand the existence of the usage of the dual meaning behind the term "barbarian," one needs to study the ancient Greek mentality. Of course you will not find a direct explanation of the dual mentality of the ancient Greeks because of the fact that the ancient Greeks were using their dualistic mentality within the confines of their social and political environment. Besides, the Greeks were more focused on competing with other Greeks for control of the Greek world rather than focusing and writing about how they themselves thought. It is best to use critical thinking skills when it comes to analyzing the social mentality of the ancient Greeks, a bit further than what cultural historians dictate.

Another thing. I was going to leave the article alone being that I was satisfied with the presence of the theory of the Pelasgians being the ancient ancestors of the Greeks in the Modern Theories section. I have ceased to change the general "definition" of the term "Pelasgians" (even though I know it is wrong), but I am upset at the fact that people are trying to change the new theory without at least talking about it first in the Discussion Page. Macrakis and others are trying to destroy a tenet of the theory where the term "barbarian" had a dual meaning (which it did in reality against what many Western European "scholars" would like to think).

If people consistently change the tenets of the new theory in the Modern Theories section of the article, then I will expand the theory to include more information about the autochthony of the Greeks. I thought that what I had written was enough and succinct enough for readers and the administrators in Wikipedia to be satisfied. Yet, no. Either the new theory conforms to Western European "standards" or else it will be deemed as a "misinterpretation." I know how my ancient ancestors thought and trust me if people cannot see things beyond what was written and do not conduct the proper studies of the ancient Greek social mentality and environment, then there is a problem with how information is disseminated/presented here. Deucalionite 8/18/05 3:27 P.M. EST (Revisions 8/22/05 7:13 P.M. EST)

I especially like the touch of the "anthropoid" (sic) skulls, "proving" that Greeks were there from the beginning! --Wetman 21:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Macrakis' Request

I am only doing this because Macrakis was nice enough to request my commentary pertaining to the article. I decided, after my final comment with Wetman, that all I would do is make certain that the Pelasgian article remain unchanged in the section about the Pelasgians being the ancestors of the Greeks.

I am indeed impressed that Wikipedia was nice enough to place a section discussing about the Pelasgians being the ancestors of the Hellenes. However, I am getting annoyed with the constant changes made to the section. Every time someone has altered the section, I expanded it to reinforce the validity of the components. I was at first satisfied with the contents of the article (I left it at five components) and also felt that what was provided in the article was succinct enough to indicate that the Pelasgians were the ancestors of the Hellenes. However, as people kept changing things, I had no choice but to expand it.

Here are some of the components that some here at Wikipedia would love to disregard:

1. Greek archaeologist Aris Poulianos claims to have discovered human remains in Greece outdating human remains in Africa by millions of years. This human occupation is held to imply that the Pelasgians, from mere thousands of years ago, were truly autochthonous.

Let's see. First, one should define the term "autochthonous." Second, one should see why the Pelasgians deemed themselves autochthonous in Greece. Sure, the Pelasgians existed thousands of years ago as opposed to the human remains discovered in Greece being millions of years old. So what? Does this change the concept of autochthony? No. If one claims to be autochthonous, then that means that he or she has had ancestors living in the same area since the beginning of humanity. Surely one cannot believe that humanity was autochthonous in two areas simultaneously? Humanity had to have begun in one area and spread out to other different areas in the world. If an empty space of land is occupied by an old human tribe, then that tribe can be deemed as the original settler group of the given area, but not an autochthounous group. If the Pelasgians were deemed by Western European scholarship as autochthonous, then would that not give reason for someone to think "Gee, could it be that the Pelasgians were the descedants of the first human beings?" Think about it. Or don't. I don't care.

For all I know, this component of the section will be deleted being that we have to only analyze the Pelasgians on a linguistic level and ignore archeaological evidence that may give credit to Pelasgian claims to autochthony. Whatever. Moving on.

1. Greek archaeologist George Chourmouziadis discovered a wooden Dispilio Tablet, which he claims to show ancient Greek letters dating between 7250 and 5260 B.C. This might challenge the conventional understanding that the alphabet orginated in western Asia far more recently; but the recovered script is a syllabary.

A component that actually discusses about language and yet it is rejected. I am getting the feeling that Wikipedia is using the old "double standards" trick. So what if the script is a syllabary and not an alphabet? What was shown (wish I could have provided a better picture in the article I wrote about the tablet) on the Dispilio Tablet possessed Greek letters. There is a possibility that the letters were created and were in the process of being formed into a simple alphabet. There is also the possibility that the alphabet was in use during the time and that the letters on the tablet show that the people were able to write.

Still, I can understand some skepticism from academic "authorities" that find the Dispilio Tablet as non-evidence in proving that the Greek language existed thousands of years ago (6000 B.C.). That is why I provided Adamantios Sampson's discovery of the ceramic fragments with Greek letters. Whatever. Moving on.

1. Greek archaeologist George Koufos (Salonica University) and French archaeologist Louis de Bonnis (French Pouatie University) discovered at Xirohori in Thessaloniki the skull of a 9 to 11 million year old anthropoid belonging to the rama-apes category in September 1989. Scientists called the anthropoid "Uranopithicus Macedonicus," which is older than Australopithicus Africanus whose age was around 3.18 million years old. The discovery made by both archaeologists reinforces the claim that the Greeks are an autochthonous people and that they are the descendants of the autochthonous Pelasgians.

The rama-ape is not an ancestor of humanity. Fine. Whatever. Yet, the whole "out of Africa" theory dictates that humans came from monkeys/apes/chimpanzees/whatever and that between 300,000 and 200,000 years ago, human beings left Africa to settle other parts of the world. If a rama-ape or "ramapithicus" is found in Greece that is older than ape remains in Africa, then shouldn't the birth of humanity be placed in Greece and not in Africa? If they found human remains or rama-ape remains in China older than the ones in Africa, then humanity started there. Yet, archaeological evidence shows that humanity (if it indeed descended from apes) began in Greece and not in Africa.

So claims of the Pelasgians being autochthonous must mean that their very distant ancestors were the first people in the world. If they were not, then autocthony cannot be applied as a term that describes the Pelasgians. Simple. Yet, the "authorities" will tell me how unrelated the Pelasgians are with the rama-ape discovery in Greece while they support the whole "out of Africa"-"man came from ape" evolution thing.

Whatever. Moving on.

1. An archaeologist named Adamantios Sampson discovered ceramic fragments with Greek letters in the desert islet of Yura in the Northern Sporades (20 miles from Alonissos). The ceramic fragments were discovered in 1992 in the "Cyclop cave" and were dated between 6000 B.C. and 5500 B.C. This reinforces Herodotus' statement of how the Hellenic speech never changed and how it was a branch of the Pelasgic. Moreover, the discovery reinforces the challenge toward the conventional understanding that the alphabet originated in western Asia.

Again, the Pelasgians are being analyzed based on their language and yet this discovery is being ignored. If the Pelasgians were thousands of years old, then would it not make sense to use the archaeological discoveries showing Greek letters as proof somewhat of what the autochthonous inhabitants of Greece spoke? I do not see old ceramic fragments or tablets that indicate that the Pelasgians spoke a different language other than Greek (or a very primitive form of Greek). If the Pelasgians truly spoke a different language and archaeological evidence shows it, then I would not bother even writing anything about the Pelasgians here at Wikipedia.

I will continue to change the article being that people need to know the whole story about the Pelasgians and why their claims to autochthony even exist and if they could be verified through any physical evidence.

Again, leave the section alone. I have not changed the basic definition of the term "Pelasgian" (even though I know it is wrong) in the article and yet everyone wants to change and distort the components that argue quite powerfully the fact that the Pelasgians were the ancestors of the Hellenes.

Later. - Deucalionite 8/22/05 2:44 P.M. EST (Revisions 8/22/05 7:06 P.M. EST)

Deucalionite's arguments

Deucalionite, your constant reversions of the text to versions which include your dubious formulations have already crossed the line from eccentricity to vandalism. Your reasoning is idiosyncratic in numerous areas, and totally erroneous in many other areas.

1) The Ouranopithecus macedoniensis (also known as Graecopithecus freybergi) remains are dated to around 9.0-9.5 million years ago [2] (Andrews et al., 1996) and are millions of years younger than equivalent remains (Dryopithecus, Ramapithecus, Sivapithecus) discovered in Africa, India, Pakistan, et cetera. There are no discovered remains which indicate that hominoids (not even hominids [3] [4]) first appeared in Greece. None. The earliest known hominoids appear elsewhere.

2)The earliest known hominid may be Orrorin tugenensis, fossils of which have been discovered in Kenya and Ethiopia dating from the late Miocene; or Sahelanthropus tchadensis, found in Chad and dating back 7-6 million years. Generally speaking however, Ardipithecus appears to be the earliest known accepted hominid, known from remains discovered in East Africa.

3)Continuing with actual hominids, the earliest Australopithecus fossils have been found in Africa. The earliest genus Homo remains have also been found in Africa. Regarding Homo sapiens, the current evidence strongly indicates that the earliest H. sapiens fossils come from Africa, though this is disputed (Asia and the Middle East also have very early specimens). However, there is no indication of Homo sapiens first appearing in Greece.

4)All the points above are taken from accepted, current anthropological research, which will be given more prominence in Wikipedia, according to policy. The text of the article Pelasgians will be edited to align with accepted science. Unaccepted science may be found in this link, for those who want to read more about the fringe theorists [http://www.grecoreport.com/homo_erectus_trigliensis__our_macedonian_ancestor.htm .

5) Your various other edits will be addressed later. "Whatever, Moving on," is a good idea for you, provided that you actually move on and refrain from including your pseudo-science in Wikipedia articles.

-Decius 11:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I am not eccentric Mr. Decius (though I should not refer to you formally being that you are quite disrespectful). In reality, I am simply dedicated to my heritage when I find people trying to distort it historically. Second, I am not a vandal. Just because I provide information in a section specifically meant to indicate that the Pelasgians were the ancestors of the Greeks, then it is not vandalism. Vandalism would have to encompass me destroying all the other content provided in the article just so that the information I provided be presented only, which is wrong.

If you are going to deride me, then at least get your cheap shot labels straight. However, I do prefer that people show some respect when it comes to academia. Granted people have grievances, but basic respect should always be maintained.

Also, I did not cross any lines. You can ban me if you like, but I have not done anything wrong. I simply provided information while respecting those around me. I only reverted the article because everyone kept changing it to suit their own needs rather than respecting the social environment of the ancient Greek world or even acknowledging the existence of archaeological evidence that may shed light to claims of Pelasgian autochthony. It is people like yourself and Mr. Septentrionalis that assume that I am your enemy and must use every cheap shot in the book to make your case against me. Not exactly what an academic must do to get his or her point across.

Fringe theorists? Galileo was a "fringe theorist" in the eyes of the Catholic Church. What's your point? If there is indeed archaeological evidence proving your case, then so be it. However, the so-called "accepted" hominid can be placed on any remains that look remotely like an average human being.

You supposedly "found" my source Decius (you must feel really proud of yourself). Yet, two can play this game. I found your source and I will quote something that may be of interest to you on this website: [[5]].

"Some contend, like all other animals, humanoids had evolutionary diversity...What is not answered is how are these early humanoids related to man or are they dead ends in the evolution of man. It also casts doubt on the origin of man being east Africa. There is no common agreement of how to define hominids. More researchers now suggest the evolution of man may have evolved in Europe and Asia before entering or reentering Africa. Most agree it is a complex affair, the evolution of man."

So much for trying to disprove the possibility of Greece being the cradle of humanity. What one sees as a hominid or a hominoid, you see as something that is neither. All a matter of opinion and debate. Oh well.

Besides, placing the archaeological discoveries of Aris Poulianos, George Koufos, Louis de Bonnis, and Adamantios Sampson (whose discoveries were ceramic fragments with Greek letters and not human remains) helps give people a somewhat decent (though not perfect) understanding as to why the Pelasgians would be deemed as autochthonous by the Athenians and by Western European scholarship. Remember, define the term "autochthonous" (it is a Greek word so if you think you know the real meaning behind the term, then keep it in mind) and see if it applies to the Pelasgians based on physical evidence.

I will continue to change the article because you have failed to take into consideration the possibility that some people are trying to help academia. You and Western scholarship just love to compartmentalize people that use their brains and question things and label them as "fringe theorists." People have a right to know about the archaeological discoveries of the people mentioned above and how these discoveries could apply to the notion of Pelasgian autochthony.

Once the whole "hominoid" definition is agreed upon in the complex world of human evolution, then give me a call. In the meantime, leave the section alone. If you want (just to prove that I can compromise unlike you or anyone else with a supposedly anti-"fringe theorist" agenda) I will place the correct dates for Uranopithicus Macedonicus.

Over and out. - Deucalionite 8/23/05 10:31 A.M. EST (Revisions 8/22/05 10:59 A.M. EST)

Unless you own a copy of Introduction to Physical Anthropology, Ninth Edition, Jurmain, Kilgore, Trevathan, and Nelson, 2003, Wadsworth Publications, you did not find my source. ---Decius 15:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

so, in one word, pseudoscience; nothing to see here. Adding nonsense to articles is also considered vandalism, Deucalionite. Not only that, your pseudoscience is relevant to human evolution, if anywhere, but certainly not on Pelasgians, so please spare us the reverting. dab (ᛏ) 15:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well excuse me if I did not find your source. Yet, the source I provided anyway is quite clear about your little humanoid, hominid, hominoid controversy. So get that cleared out before making any changes to the article. Moreover, Adamantios Sampson should definitely be included, but of course you are the one who is uncomprimising.

You claim that my "pseudoscience" is relevant to evolution and not to the Pelasgians. Quite hypocritical if you ask me. Pseudoscience should be irrelevant to both evolution and the Pelasgians. Period. Pseudoscience is oriented on the dissemination of false data. Yet, you do not mind having my supposed "pseudoscience" placed in areas discussing about human evolution. Again, hypocritical. I suggest you do some soul-searching on your part. Also, when you have serious archaeological evidence, how can that be deemed as "pseudoscience?" Let me guess. You yourself are a "pseudoscientist," but will deny this and flood this discussion board with Ph.D awards and whatnot. Well, for you to take the time to call me a "pseudoscientist" must mean that you are one too. Takes one to know one, right? Of course this is a complete waste of time when we are supposed to be talking about the Pelasgians.

Again, I am not a vandal. If I was, then I would have destroyed the Pelasgian article every day or just simply put what I wanted. Yet, I was willing enough to compromise with you and even changed some data in the "Pelasgians as ancestors of the Hellenes" section to help ensure the dissemination of honest information. You do not want to compromise nor do you want to acknowledge the discoveries of Adamantios Sampson on the ceramic fragments possessing Greek letters.

You fail to respect people and this is why your so-called "vandals" even exist in the first place. If you respect people and compromise with them, then chances are that both sides could benefit. Granted, if you see something extremely wrong (or you are treated with disrespect after you showed respect) then put your foot down. However, archaeological evidence does not harm anyone who wonders what life was like before the Pelasgians.

Being disrespectful toward me instead of negotiating or (calmly and logically) discussing your point of argument here has sent your statements to the grave. Granted you do make some points, I am unconvinced being that you need a crash course in civility and honesty. Either you are serious about the honest dissemination of information or not. Choose.

If you feel that grumpy about having the Pelasgians being related to the people discovered by Poulianos and Koufos, then all you had to do was be respectful and honest. You failed. Calling me things that transcend the purpose of the article has only burgeoned my purpose in ensuring that the information presented in the article be honest.

All you have to do is put two and two together. Pelasgian autochthony (Greek definition: "sprung from the earth" being that you assume it just means "native")? Hmmm. Archaeological evidence? Hmmm. Could there be a connection? Maybe. End result: more research needed but archaeological evidence has helped to some extent. See that? The wonderful world of thinking. Sure we all make mistakes. Yet, I corrected the mistake of the age of Uranopithicus Macedonicus. Were you satisfied? Not really.

I will revert back the article until you show more respect and make your case without your cheap shot labels. Good luck in your soul-searching. Though I doubt you know where to start. I almost forgot. I will only add to the section about Adamantios Sampson's discovery and see how you react. If that one aspect of the section is changed, then it shall prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are uncompromising, disrespectful, and that you deliberately ignore important academic contributions. Make your move and show me what a true "academic" you are.

Over and out. - Deucalionite 8/23/05 12:23 P.M. EST

Yes, I'm aware of what "autochthonic" meant, but unless you claim that the Pelasgians literally "sprang from the earth" , there is absolutely no relevance. Keep reverting the text and expect your IP to be banned eventually. ---Decius 16:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Suit yourself. Yet you do not have the right to ban people who only wish to honestly enrich information you cannot stomach. You have proven to me that you are uncompromising and disrespectful. I only placed the addition of Adamantios Sampson in the section to see how you would react. If you had left it alone, then I would have no longer bothered to make alterations to the Pelasgian article. Sampson's discoveries (like George Chourmouziadis') help to verify the existence of the Greek language since 6000 B.C. If the Pelasgians were speaking a language back then, wouldn't it be Greek based on what archaeology has unearthed?

Oh, that's right. You are a "spoonfeed me please" Western European "scholar." If nothing is directly stated, then we must assume the negative and ignore social analysis or even archaeology that does not suit the Western European "standard." Gee, what creative "thinkers" you are. If you ban me, then you will only make the evidence more compelling. I have ways of making certain that the truth (whether one likes it or not) is disseminated to the public.

Here I thought Wikipedia was full of bright-minded and respectful people. Guess I was wrong. Hey, while you are trying to ban me Herr Decius (would you care for a goosestep salute?), why don't you spread rumours (as Wikipedian Minister of Propaganda) how I was trying to lie to people when all I want is to see information be honest when presented.

Of course, I mean no disrespect, but I think you really need to take that crash course in civility and honesty. For now, I will leave the article alone. There is always tomorrow though.

Over and out. - Deucalionite 8/23/05 12:45 P.M. EST

Deucalionite, it does not surprise me that you know nothing concerning Physical anthropology. Pulling quotes off of whatever website you come across only confirms this suspicion. The definition of hominid is simple: if a specimen is judged to be a type that arose after the divergence from the great apes, it is a hominid; otherwise it is a hominoid, or, going back further, an anthropoid. Anthropologists, without an exception, judge Ouranopithecus to be a hominoid, and not even an especially early one, at 9 million (let's even be generous and say 10 million) years old, when you compare it to the 27 million year old hominoid Proconsul, discovered in Kenya.

The set of characteristics used to discriminate between a hominoid and hominid have their gray areas, but only to a point, and Ouranopithecus is clearly a hominoid. Its skull is not much different from the skull of an orangutan. If you want to cite 9 million year old proto-orangutans (which are considered to have wandered into Greece ultimately from Africa, in any case) as evidence that the Pelasgians were Hellenes, feel free to do so, but not in Wikipedia articles. ---Decius 20:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

doh, of course Deucalionite believes to be sprung from the earth, or rather, to be sprung from a lump of earth. You have no obligation to educate him, Decius; as long as he doesn't cleanly cite the sources claiming Pelasgians were orangutans, he may be safely reverted. dab (ᛏ) 20:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all Decius, I know enough physical anthropology to make my point. If I am wrong, then I expect respectful and decent-minded people to correct me or provide logical arguments sans the childish remarks. Unfortunately, the issue currently is not with the Pelasgians, but rather with your conduct (and Dbachmann's conduct though his interference is unnecessary being that he is unaware that Western scholarship speaks of Pelasgian "autochthony" without exactly knowing its true Greek definition and applying it properly). If you apply yourself more respectfully here, then your arguments would have more meaning.

Proto-orangutans that migrated out of Africa into Greece? And here I thought Western scholarship promoted the concept of people evolving from monkeys/apes/chimpanzees/whatever and migrating out of Africa some 300,000 or 200,000 years ago. Outdated? Maybe. Used today in "academic" discussions about human origins? Yes. Anyway, if you are that determined to not have archaeological evidence that may shed some light into prehistorical Greece, then fine. Have a ball. Yet, the Pelasgian article is still incomplete. Tomorrow is all I need to add some final "touches" to the article. If not tomorrow, then soon. Over and out. - Deucalionite 8/23/05 8:16 P.M. EST (Revisions 8/23/05 8:27 P.M. EST)

Deucalionite, what are you talking about? No anthropologist claims that Homo sapiens evolved from monkeys, chimpanzees or any ape species currently extant. The hypothesis is that Homo sapiens evolved from Homo erectus in Africa, then migrated out of Africa about 100,000 years ago or so. I see no indication that you know anything about physical anthropology whatsoever, nor have you made your point. ---Decius 00:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

*lol* I misapplied the term autochthonous by implying that Deucalionite believes he is made of a lump of earth? This is hilarious. As is this discussion on fossilized monkeys on the page about the pelasgian. Whether there were monkeys in Greece, nine million years ago, or not, it certanily does not have the remotest bearing on the Pelasgians. I think we can confidently consider this discussion concluded, and remove such nonsense as it turns up. dab (ᛏ) 09:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The discussion of the fossil evidence has concluded, but I suspect Deucalionite will continue in exactly the same vein as before.

Ouranopithecus does not have any bearing on 1) where the first hominoid appeared 2) where the first hominid appeared 3) where genus Homo (genus) first appeared 4) where Homo sapiens first appeared 5) whether the Pelasgians were Hellenes or not. As long as Deucalionite continues to insist on his irrelevant (yes, irrelevant) paragraphs dealing with hominoid fossils in Greece, I will not show him an ounce of respect.

One may also notice that I have not yet attacked the basic theory that he believes in: that the Pelasgians were Hellenes. But using fossil hominoids to try to support that theory is erroneous.

---Decius 11:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Incomplete Pelasgian Article

Much to the dismay of Decius' false assumptions of my intentions at placing the final "touches" on the article, I have already decided not to place any archaeological evidence that (to Decius) does not belong in the Pelasgian article.

As for the term "barbarian," it would be best if Decius left the article alone being that he may know a lot on physical anthropology but not much on the Greek social mentality. Moreover, Adamantios Sampson's archaeological evidence that applies to the time frame for the existence of the Pelasgians (thousands of years as opposed to millions of years) and the language they spoke should not be ignored.

If Adamantios Sampson's relevant discovery is ignored, then what is stopping Decius (or others) from removing George Chourmouziadis' discovery? In short, I am only willing to compromise if compromise is an option for people such as Decius. The section "Pelasgians as ancestors of the Hellenes" should be maintained at five components (including Sampson's discovery).

Whatever grievances Decius may have with me should not hinder the honest dissemination of information pertaining to the Pelasgians. Just because the discoveries of Koufos and Poulianos are not relevant to the Pelasgian article does not make the applicable archaeology (Youra Potsherds) any less applicable.

If Decius decides to compromise, then the contents on the Pelasgian article can finally be agreed upon. If not (and Decius continues to alter the section), then this is the last message. If Decius were Greek, then he would probably say something like "skasila mou megali" in response to this paragraph. Or not. All I know is that the Pelasgian article is incomplete and requires the first four components to be left alone and the fifth one (Youra Potsherds) to be included.

Over and out. - Deucalionite 8/24/05 12:14 P.M. EST

I agree to allow the inclusion of your fifth paragraph, at least until a blatant flaw is noted in the argument. However, I do not agree to your treatment of the "barbarian" section (it is wrong).

On another note, do not confuse your terms: I disagree especially with the anthropological material, more than what you incorrectly term the "archaeological evidence" (though the archaeological "evidence" does not indicate your scenario in any way). ---Decius 16:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Deucalionite, you are incorrectly characterizing this as a dispute between you and Decius. It is not. Every other editor contributing to this article (Decius, dab, Wetman, Septentrionalis, myself) agrees that the material you've added is not relevant, not accepted, or inaccurately reported. Repeatedly re-adding it verbatim in the face of this consensus is vandalism. --Macrakis 16:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I am glad that we have finally agreed upon something Decius. No hard feelings (the points you have made in your arguments were strong, but your lack of respect and compromise led to persistence on my part). Next time, use the tools of honesty, civility, and respect wisely. The treatment of the "barbarian" section is not wrong. It is quite honest in how ancient Greeks thought in their social and political climate. I will provide more information if compromise is still an option that you are willing enough to use at your disposal.

Macrakis, when someone uses cheap shot remarks and irrelevant labels against me, then how do you expect me to react? Kindly? No. Respect and honor must always be maintained even when grievances and arguments are at their highest. It is hard, I know, but it can be achieved. If I were a true "vandal" then the Pelasgian article would have no room at all for any sort of discussion or compromise.

What I have done was not vandalism, but rather persistence. Septentrionalis, at first, did not take me seriously when I provided information about the Pelasgians being the ancestors of the Greeks. He eventually allowed for the information to be present in the article, but that could have been arranged after a process of compromise and understanding where both parties take each other seriously (i.e. sans the childish remarks). If I were a true "vandal" Macrakis, then I would have been banned from Wikipedia immediately. Why have I not been banned? Because I take academia seriously and talk about whatever grievances exist with an article whether or not I am right or wrong in the end.

Just because your congregation of Wikipedians thinks that I am a "vandal" does not make me a vandal. Persistent, yes. Vandal, no. Repeatedly re-adding components in a section meant to discuss about the Pelasgians being the ancestors of the Greeks is not vandalism. Moreover, you should be cognizant of the fact that I explained myself here as to the reasons why I expanded the section. People kept changing the section to suit their needs without talking about it first. One reversion after another. When I provided a lenghty explanation of what I have written, the responses I get are very short and often do not explain why the reversions were made. My statements, though long, were quite straightforward.

Anyway, Wikipedia policy should emphasize the importance of respect among arguers. Falsely labeling someone a "vandal" when no one takes the person seriously or uses childish remarks against the person is no different of a crime than what a real vandal does. When someone mocks me, it compels me to deride in return. I do not want to, but that is why respect from both sides should be maintained. I hope you understand that. Over and out. - Deucalionite 8/24/05 1:31 P.M. EST

An insight into why I didn't show much respect for you: you constantly reverted points that were blatantly illogical (the anthropological claims), and your constant reversions showed that you had/have no respect for all the Wikipedia editors who demonstrated your errors, or for Wikipedia itself (it is not your personal website).

Your formulation in the "barbarian" section is incorrect, and I will demonstrate this later.

---Decius 17:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Youra Potsherds and Dispilio Tablet

I must excuse myself for hastily agreeing to Deucalionite's compromise (though I indicated it was provisional, until I noticed a blatant flaw in the argument). I clicked on the link, googled a bit, and found no indication that any archaeologist considers those markings to be an early form of the Greek alphabet (the blatant flaw).

I'd already realized that even if they were Greek letters, they could have been used by people who spoke and wrote a non-Greek language, then passed their alphabet onto the Greeks; but if the letters were Greek (as you claimed that some archaeologists consider that option, though they would have been in the fringe), I may have let it "slide by", but that would be compromising Wikipedia quality.

I also don't see why we should further compromise Wikipedia standards and present the Dispilio Tablet as proof or as an argument that the Pelasgians spoke a Greek language. I was thinking about leaving that as a possible proof of "long continuity", but when it comes down to it, it cannot tell us what kind of language the people who inscribed it spoke. See Linear A and Linear B, similar scripts, different languages.

The theory you are trying to find evidence for is that the Pelasgians spoke a Greek language. Beyond some dubious classical quotes, no such evidence exists.

---Decius 19:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

One could make a perfectly equivalent argument that these were early forms of the Phoenician alphabet as well. They are equally far from those. But that would run counter to the local agenda. Nothing in these incised figures suggests connected text. --Wetman 21:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Change the Article

Excuse me. I thought we had an agreement. The archaeological evidence that was pertinent to the Pelasgian page was to be left alone and included in the overall section. It seems that the Wikipedia congregation here has decided to "wikify" (or Western Europeanize) the strong possibility that the Pelasgians were the ancestors of the Greeks. This is not my personal essay (though I thank you for trying to give me credit). Trust me, others (no, not "fringe theorists") have proposed such things way before my arrival here.

I agreed to remove the archaeological discoveries of Poulianos and Koufos. However, the discoveries of Sampson and Chourmouziadis should be maintained. Decius believes that the people who used the Greek letters shown in the Dispilio Tablet and the Youra Potsherds could have been non-Greek or used by non-Greek speakers.

Well, let's put some things into some proper social context (being that the so-called "congregation" is made up of linguists and physical anthropologists, but not a single social analyst). First of all, indeed language does not determine the background of the people who spoke and developed the language. However, in that time period from which the Dispilio Tablet and the Youra Potsherds were developed, civilizations were developing and the creation of a (somewhat) standardized language was very useful to ensure proper communication among people. The alphabet (or the letters from it) were used by the people who created them. It is not feasible for the Pelasgians (or whatever old native tribe inhabiting Greece at the time) to create an original alphabet and not use it. That would sort of defeat the purpose of creating an original standardized language (or at least a comprehensive one) in the first place.

So based on this, we can say that those who first developed hieroglyphics did not use hieroglyphics. Right? So the Pelasgians (or whoever) could have developed the alphabet and not use it. Right? Is that your argument Decius? If the Pelasgians were living thousands of years prior to the advent of Hellenism, then how can they not use some sort of language (standardized or not) with symbols that could very well have lead to the birth of the Hellenic alphabet? You also believe that only fringe theorists find Greek letters in the evidence that is relevant to the Pelasgian article. This may very well imply that mainstream (Western European) scholars do not see Greek letters. This explains why you cannot violate "Wikipedia quality" (or Western European quality).

You claim that there is no evidence that the Pelasgians were Greeks. Herodotus, to you, is simply a dubious classical scholar when it comes to the Pelasgians. He may have had his flaws, but he was quite clear about the origins of the Hellenic language. Hey, while you are at it, why don't you claim that Isocrates and other authors dictating Athenian autochthony as dubious too? I mean, Western Europe loves to worship ancient Greek civilization, but cannot seem to stomach having Greece be older than that of Homer's Greeks.

Wetman even brings up the possibility of both forms of evidence being early forms of the Phoenician alphabet. Wait. Wasn't the supposed "conventional understanding" (the real question is whose understanding?) was that the alphabet originated from western Asia? Oh wait. It could have originated there and transferred to the Phoenicians, right? Or maybe the Phoenicians invented the alphabet in some early form and did not use it, right? Stop me if I am going too fast. The ceramic potsherds from Youra have Greek letters on them. These were man-made creations with symbols that represented the culture of the time when the ceramic objects were first made. Original and archaic forms of Greek symbols? Why not? But wait, you cannot say that here at Wikipedia. Not with the lingering of the whole "early form of the Phoenician alphabet" notion floating about.

So, only when the entire Greek alphabet (in the form of Homeric Greek and God forbid not in the form of something a little more primitive or "barbaric" as Herodotus would put it) is discovered within the size range of a skyscraper (with a written phrase in parentheses stating "the Greek language was developed in 7000 B.C.") will Western Europe agree that the Greek alphabet was older than it first assumed. So, in the end we have the congregation of "wikified-minded" people against a supposed "fringe-theorist." Sort of like the "Catholic Church" vs. "Galileo." History repeats itself in all sorts of ways. Ironic, funny, strange, but it makes for an interesting discussion.

Anyway, the evidence that is thousands of years old can be applied to the Pelasgians without having to scurry around for fifty direct quotes. I have given a direct quote from Herodotus, but he is deemed as "dubious." So, pray tell what exactly do the Youra Potsherds show? Could there possibly be someone here at Wikipedia (or anywhere) who has actually analyzed the potsherds along with Sampson to determine the "non-Greek" letters shown there? Heck, the letters shown on the Dispilio Tablet are "charagmata" (Greek word too, makes you think). So everything that could potentially be a clue to indicating that the alphabet was invented by the Greeks has to undergo the Western European "processing machine." Usually, I get results like "file not found" and "does not compute." Funny, but interesting.

15 years in the courts. Just because Aris Poulianos found something that jolted the nerves of the "foreign" academic institutions. Is there a chance that Wikipedia may be deliberately changing everything to suit a "foreign" standard? What do you think Decius? How about you Wetman? You know, I wish some people in comparative studies would jump in. That would make for some interesting conversation, wouldn't you say? You know, I would not be surprised if the entire section "Pelasgians as the ancestors of the Hellenes" would just vanish by tomorrow. Over and out. - Deucalionite 8/24/05 7:02 P.M. EST

Deucalionite, it would certainly be noteworthy if the Dispilio and Youra objects had writing (not just charagmata i.e. markings) on them, whether it was Greek or not. But I haven't been able to find the articles in which Sampson and Chourmouziadis claim that they do. Could you please quote and cite the original scholarly articles (not newspaper articles, not Web sites) where they make these claims? --Macrakis 23:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Alright. Fair enough. Though it would be nice of you (and your "congregation") to leave the section alone (no more changes) until I get back. If you are as proud of a Greek as I think you are (or not since you probably have been "wikified"), then keep an eye on the section until I get back with the sources you requested. If I so much as find another component of the section "altered" for the sake of Western European "quality," then no dice. I'll find what you are looking for as long as you keep the article safe from any other "attacks" by Decius. Do not betray this agreement if you want to see the Pelasgian article have some closure. Over and out. - Deucalionite 8/24/05 7:54 P.M. EST

Do not make silly threats. There is no "agreement" to "betray". I am only interested in getting a good article. --Macrakis 23:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Jesus, the origin of the Greek alphabet has nothing to do with either the Greek language or the Pelasgians. It was adopted from the Phoenicians. If there is citeable evidence of differing opinions, take it to Greek alphabet. Just be brief, WP:CITE, and spare us the offtopic discourses. If there is a citeable theory of Greek continuity, comparable to Paleolithic Continuity Theory, do a Greek Continuity Theory article or something, but stop spamming us here. dab (ᛏ) 06:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Plato, Kritias, B.29 : "Φοίνικες δ' ηύρον γράμματα αλεξίλογα" (=the Phoenicians invented letters, the speechsavers", what an amazing word!). There are also numerous archaic inscriptions referring to the office of the scribe called "ποινικαστάς" in Doric (Attic would be φοινικαστής), from times when the Phoenician alphabet was a relative novelty and a professional scribe was needed to write stuff down in it. Chronographos 09:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Those are not threats Macrakis (you really are "wikified"), they are promises. As long as you keep an eye on the article from any more "changes." Decius and I agreed to a few things about the section of the "Pelasgians as ancestors of the Greeks" and then he went off and took away two out of the five components in the section after the agreement. I think that is betrayal of an agreement since his short explanation of his actions justifies everything, right? If you can "wikify" everything, then there is no chance for the Phoenician "origins" of the alphabet to be challenged. Am I not right, old chap?

As for you dab, you have proven that Wikipedia cannot stomach the fact that the Phoenician alphabet was not adopted by the Greeks, but that it was the other way around. Do I smell a whiff of support for the Indo-European Theory? Of course, we cannot say that here. So, Western Europe will play "nice" and place everything in the Greek Continuity Theory just so that it can keep "fringe theorists" such as myself at bay. Your "generosity" knows no bounds. Am I not right, old bean?

Nice of you to drop by Chronographe and interesting quote by the way. Again, I will get the sources you want Macrakis (though I doubt you would accept them if I found them). As for you dab, get with the times. This is not the age of the Eurocolonial (though you would like that era to come back wouldn't you?) for you to be upholding the Indo-European Theory. Over and out. - Deucalionite 8/25/05

if you have, in fact, realized that WP cannot stomach your theories, I am quite satisfied. dab (ᛏ) 15:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

national mysticism

I am in fact gettin interested in the various movements of national mysticism and I would really like to hack together an article on these theories. grecoreport.com [6] [7] looks like a good starting-point, but clearly too stark-raving for an article; isprehistory.it more notable? Is there some published debate about this stuff, or is this only internet kookery? What title would such an article have? Paleolithic Proto-Greek hypothesis? Hellenic Anthropogenesis theory? Is there a term for this stuff? It reminds me of some of the Harappan kookery over at Aryan Invasion Theory, and it would really be nice to write a comparative overview of these ideas at National mysticism. Occult Aryan race/Armanen/Nordic theory stuff of course belongs in the same category, but these phenomena are easier to describe because they had quite some notability in the early 20th century. dab (ᛏ) 13:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a vast subject, as we know. I would be surprised if there is one nation on this earth that doesn't have these guys. Www.grecoreport.com is a jewel that I came across awhile ago, and I set it on my mantle besides www.dacia.org. I vote for an overview in National mysticism as well as more particular articles. ---Alex 13:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

what are you saying? Switzerland doesn't have them, we are far too boring :P (sadly, we do, in fact, have them, but they tend to team up with Germany's Neonazis, since there is really no "Swiss nation" to speak of :) dab (ᛏ) 13:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The above are nothing. You should see the theories that the Twelve Gods were supernatural extraterrestrial beings that came to Earth from Sirius and created humankind.  :-)))))))) Chronographos 14:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Sea Peoples

User:Glengordon01 added some text (which I partly rewrote as it is below) to Lemnian language, which however belongs in Pelasgians and Sea Peoples if it emanates from a notable source:

"There is a hypothesis that the actual Pelasgians are to be identified with a specific group of people that united with other nationless Sea Peoples to wage war on Egypt during the Year 5 of Pharaoh Merneptah's reign in the 12th century BC. In Egyptian texts, their name is written as [prsţw], perhaps for *Perasţaw. "

--Alexander 007 09:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Pelasgians and "Proto-Ionian Theory"

Macrakis has censored the references I gave to the "Proto-Ionian Theory" on several false motives:

1. no academic publications : wrong. J.Faucounau has published several books on his "Proto-Ionian Theory" at L'Harmattan Paris, which is a scientific well-known French publisher.
2. no academic references : wrong. J.F.'s work has been commented by several scholars. I'll just give an example here : the cited book on Les Proto-Ioniens has been reviewed in the Revue des Etudes Grecques 2002, Vol.15, p.424-425.

Macrakis has also "accused" J.F. to have proposed a translation of the Phaistos Disk, without saying that he has also presented more than 30 pieces of evidence in favour of this translation. And anyway, would this translation be wrong, I have to ask : "So, what ? Why proposing a (right or wrong) solution of a difficult enigma would be a motive for censorship, in a NPOV article about the Pelasgians Problem ? (User 80.90.57.154 18:20, February 13, 2006)

I "censored" nothing. I removed references to a theory that does not appear to be widely accepted. These references were added by an anon (perhaps a sock puppet of banned user Irismeister?) with no edit history to an article which has proven to be a magnet for fringe theories. Faucounau has a very thin publication record. (Nothing indexed or even cited in the Arts & Humanities Citation Index.)

Searching for J. Faucounau on scholar.google.com finds his four books, and six other mentions, none of them on the subject of the Proto-Ionians. The Wikipedia article on the Proto-Ionians was deleted [8] for similar reasons. Searching on JSTOR, we find a review of his Phaistos book in the American Journal of Archaeology, entitled "How Not to Decipher the Phaistos Disk", with comments such as "this study commits enough serious errors of all sorts to warrant a secure place in the anthology of misguided decipherments". This does not give confidence, especially since I cannot locate a single positive reference to him.

I have not been able to find any other reputable scholar who agrees with Faucounau's Proto-Ionian theory. Given all this, I think it is up to you, User:80.90.57.154, to show us that this theory is widely accepted. Of course, if you are banned user Irismeister, you shouldn't be editing at all. --Macrakis 22:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

1. "removing references to a theory" is censoring.
2. You give wrong reasons for this censorship, contrary to the Wikipedia rules. a)- the "Proto-Ionian theory" would not be widely accepted, what may be true for a very recent theory. But is it a motive for not mentioning it ? I say NO, the more as it has not been neither widely refuted. The only criticism against it that you have been able to find is a very superficial one, written by one single scholar, Yves Duhoux. b)-The wikipedia article on the Proto-Ionians was deleted. By whom ? Probably by someone, who like you, I guess, doesn't know the J.F.'s work . Because your third and four arguments (hereafter) prove that! c)-Faucounau has a very publication thin record . On the WEB, maybe, because he has just published a few papers in ANISTORITON.. (BTW, do you consider this e-journal as not serious ? Please, tell us !). But he has published more than 40 papers in regular peer-reviewed journal, as prestigious as the Revue d'Assyriologie, Kadmos, Revue des Etudes Anciennes, Etudes Indoeuropéennes, B.S.L., etc. Are all the members of the Edition boards who have accepted to publish his papers in such journals all stupid ???? Do you consider yourself as a better judge ???? And if yes, why ? d)-you have not been able to find any reputable scholar who agrees with Faucounau's theories : You didn't search very hard for that !... I have already quoted the review of J.F.'s book Les Proto-Ioniens in the R.E.G. Why didn't you pay attention to this reference, which contradicts what you pretend?. And here is another reference, this time on the WEB : <http://www-personal.umich.edu/~artsfx/notes3.html>
3. You are citing the name of Irismeister. It a fact that J.Faucounau's scientific reputation has not been helped by the ardour of some netters, like "Irismeister" or "Grapheus", to make his work known. By why didn't you read the work itself, instead of limiting your knowledge to the "Irismeister"s posts, as it seems ? So, if you want to be serious, read J.F.'s books and papers, please, instead of limiting your enquiry to a few posts on the WEB !
4. A last remark : could you please respect the Wikipedia editorial rule concerning the spacing when you answer, so there is no possibility of confusion ? Thank you. (User 80.90.57.154, 8:30, February 14, 2006)

by accusing Macrakis of "censorship", you show a certain misunderstanding of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia: see WP:NOT. That said, WP is not above reporting on fringe theories, but these will be identified as such. For this reason I would not object completely to mentioning Faucounau, but certainly not in the intro, and certainly not without saying that he is fringy. I would also recommend to 80.90.57.154 that if you want to continue this debate, you should get an account. dab (ᛏ) 10:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying that a theory is "fringy" is nothing but an opinion. And suppressing all the references to a well-known author (although Macradis doesn't know him!) because someone has "the opinion" that his theory is "fringy" is a violation of the NPOV rule, whatever the word one uses to qualify such an action. Thanks for trying to solve the problem in another way than Mr Macridis, who, as far as I know, is not an archaeologist, neither a linguist, nor an universally recognized specialist in those fields (User 80.90.57.154 16:00, February 14, 2006)

You seem to agree that Faucounau's theory is not "widely accepted", and argue that it is not "widely refuted" either. But WP does not generally report on theories until they held by at least a "significant minority", or are notable because they have been widely debated. You are right that I did not do a complete literature search. However, as I mentioned, I checked the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and JSTOR. Even if his work had not been published in one of the journals covered by those services, if it were widely accepted, it would have appeared in a citation. As I've said before, it is perfectly possible that Faucounau is correct. But WP does not judge correctness. See WP:NPOV:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Can you quote "prominent adherents"? --Macrakis 16:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

1. I take good notice that when you suppressed all the references to J.F.'s work, you had not made any serious literature search. An attitude which is totally unscientific in my opinion. I would be sure that it's also yours, and that in the future, you will -at the least- read the J.F.'s books before censoring the references to his work.

   The J.F;'s theory is considered as revolutionary and has been published very recently. No surprise, then, if it is neither widely accepted, nor widely rejected.

2. you said that you didn't find it in JSTOR. This e-journal is mainly dealing with works written in English. J.Faucounau's main publications have been written in French. Another no surprise, then, if this author is not widely cited in JSTOR. And why didn't you mention that one may find the reference of his four recent books in scholar.google ? When you noticed that, you wrote that none of those books were about the Proto-Ionian Theory, what is totally wrong : they are all dealing with the "Proto-Ionian Theory", in a way or in another. Once again, you showed a non-scientific attitude : judging the content of a book from its title, without reading it. Don't you agree?
3. You are asking me to quote proeminent adherents, as if the J.Faucounau's name was not enough to warranty the seriousness of his work. I have already given the references of several peer-reviewed journals who have published papers under his signature. Is it not enough ? Do you consider that all the members of the Editorial Board of journals like Revue d'Assyriology, Etudes Indoeuropéennes, the e-journal Anistoriton, etc. are fool ? Your question is outrageous, coming from somebody who is not, as far as I know, a specialist in Aegean archaeology or linguistics. The more as I already gave the references of some scholarly reviews, approving J.F.'s ideas, like the review of the book Les Proto-Ioniens in the REG 2002. That you don't know the professional journals I cited is your problem. (User80.90.57.154, 18:10, February 14, 2006)

I am glad you agree "it is neither widely accepted, nor widely rejected". So it doesn't belong in the WP (yet). No, the author of a new theory is not considered a "prominent adherent". --Macrakis 17:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but it does belong to WP, because it's a)- a serious theory b)-already accepted by a minority c)-which has been already mentioned and/or reviewed by professionals (I cited for instance the REG 2002 review. Why do you want to ignore it?) (User 80.90.57.154, 18:20, February 14, 2006).

I didn't say it wasn't serious; I said you didn't provide evidence that it was "accepted". Perhaps the REG 2002 review is a positive review by a prominent adherent. What exactly does the review say? Remember, it is not enough that it be reviewed.... --Macrakis 18:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I quote a few sentences (in French) : Cet élégant ouvrage... est la synthèse de vingt cinq années de recherches.. -- Aucun fait linguistique n'établissant avec certitude que l'ionien d'Homère ait été un dialecte de formation tardive... -- Jean Faucounau montre qu'un peuple de dialecte proto-ionien précéda en Egée les Mycéniens, que ce peuple était un peuple de marins et qu'il était établi dans les Cyclades vers 2700 avant notre ère -- Trois sortes de preuves, ou, si l'on veut, d'indices... -- une savante démonstration -- Etc. Why you don't read this review yourself ?.. Afraid that it goes against your prejudicial ideas about J.F.'s work? (User80.90.57.154, 18:30, February 14, 2006).

OK, that's progress. So, now are you ready to say who the "prominent adherents" are? --Macrakis 19:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The review is generally favorable to the linguistic parts of the theory. It says, however, Sans vouloir entre dans le problème du déchriffrement du Disque de Phaistos, which is a polite suggestion of doubt; and it does not mention the Pelasgians at all. The Phaistos Disk is "le seul document proto-ionien connu à ce jour" (from Fauconnau), so these are serious lacks for this article. Septentrionalis 22:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Apparently -inthos and Don- (as in Don or Danube) are PI roots. Septentrionalis 22:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The "proeminent adherent" author of the REG review is Prof. Faure. From personal conversations with professionals, I may also tell (but you have to take my words as granted for this or directly contact the scholars I cite!) that the Proto-Ionian Theory has interested several archaeologists (e.g. Ch. Doumas, Prof. Kritzas, J. Poucet, etc.).

Satisfied now ?.. And may I ask you a reciprocal question : what are your credentials for judging about the J.F.'s work, putting apart your Greek origin, which may explain an amateurish interest in Aegean Prehistory ? How many papers did you publish on the subject ? In which journals ? (User 80.90.57.154, 20:25, February 14, 2006).

Mr. 80.90.57.154, while Macrakis is a respected Wikipedia editor, you are simply an IP number to us. You even may or may not be J. Faucounau. No matter how competent you are in the field, we'll just have to take your word for it, won't we? Therefore, we adhere strictly to WP:CITE (and not to pissing contests about how many scholars editors may know, or how many papers they may have published). It doesn't matter who you are, feel free to cite yourself, as long as we get clean quotes with clean references in the article. I can believe that "several archaeologists" "were interested" in the theory. This doesn't mean they accept it, and it doesn't mean it is anywhere near communis opinio. WP:NPOV dictates that we give most weight to academic communis opinio. Divergent views, if academic, may be mentioned. I called them "fringy", but you can pick a nicer wording. I do not pretend to know the literature on the subject. But I must insist that you do not attempt to give a lopsided account just because you happen to like Faucounau's theory. We can mention it, but we will mention it under "other speculations", and not on par with the time-honoured "pre-Greek" zero hypothesis. dab (ᛏ) 21:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I recognize that I was a bit rude with Mr Macrakis, and I apologize. But I was deeply shocked to see a respectable Wikipedia editor to suppress all the references concerning a theory, without having read himself a single book or paper about it, as it was obvious in my eyes from the false motives he gave for this suppression (no academic publications-- no academic references-- none of the books quoted in scholar.google is about the Proto-Ionian Theory -- etc.). This being said, I consider the question settled with the present redaction. (User 80.90.57.154, 22:15, February 14, 2006).

Header

The redaction advocated by some Wikipedia editors is contrary to the facts :

1. "The Greek references to Pelasgians would be unanimously in agreement that they spoke a language...not intelligible to Hellenes"

   This is wrong : some Greek authors have talked, for instance, about Ionians being Pelasgians.

   Citations, please. Septentrionalis 23:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

2. These editors have also wanted to suppress the sentence : They also have been considered as the descendents of Greek Proto-Ionians. This is a fact : There does exist a competitive theory, which considers the Pelasgians as being initially' the descendents of the Proto-Ionians. Why this theory would not be mentioned, as the other are ? This is contrary to the Wikipedia rules and spirit. (User 80.90.57.154, February 14, 2006)•

   On the contrary, it enforces Wikipedia policy not to give undue weight to any view. When Fauconnau convinces a substantial portion of the republic of letters that he is right, Wikipedia will follow; not the other way around. No one is removing him from the article, as far as I can see. Septentrionalis 23:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Euripides, Oreste, 857 etc. Would you also negate that the Athenians - who spoke a Ionic dialect- are said to be Pelasgians by Herodotos ? It is wrong, therefore to use the adjective unanimously.

What Herodotus said is thoroughly discussed in the article. Please read it, and the quotations linked to, before continuing this. Thank you for the reference to Euripedes; but since when are the Argives Ionian? Septentrionalis 23:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as no other theory concerning the Pelasgians is mentioned in the header, I see no objection not to mention the word "Proto-Ionians" in the header. It a question of NPOV. (User 80.90.57.154, 11:58, February 14, 2006)

Please read the policy cited (and please sign with ~~~~, which will automagically become your signature). Septentrionalis 00:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page is getting long, and refers largely to settled questions. Is it time to archive it? Septentrionalis 04:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)