Talk:Pelasgians/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pelasgian as hellenic

Thomas Harrison (University College, London).Harrison was not misquoted diffand he talks of the language.Put the section back inversion without pelasgic's irrelevant part .Pelasgicmoons behaviour should not allow the article to be downgraded. Megistias (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

you deleted my sourced&referenced text, violating the rules of wikipedia. you gave me a valid reason to write to the editor assistance

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That was futureperfect.Megistias (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Deucaliniote had added the section at first.diffMegistias (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

i don't understand what is happening, the "pelasgic hellen" section doesn't exsist more? PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Waiting for an explanation from FP on why he rejects the section since he refused to give one with an extremely direspective manner in his talk page.Megistias (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I gave my reasoning here. The passage contained no indication that any modern scholar thinks Pelasgians were Greeks. The Harrison paper was completely misquoted and ripped out of context. The whole paper is, in fact, about Pelasgians as an example of how Greeks saw foreigners; their foreign-ness is the constant premise of the whole discussion, as is in fact apparent from the first sentence of the very paragraph that was being quoted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Harisson is centered on the language not ethnicity and the article part was as well and quoted him directly.You are "misquoting him" right now.Megistias (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the part of the article & section that uses harrison

• According to Thomas Harrison (University College), Herodotus was ambiguous in differentiating between linguistically similar dialects and languages distinct from Greek.[53] As a result of this ambiguity, the language of the Pelasgians was "barbaric" in the sense that it was akin to Greek rather than being entirely non-Greek. Support for this lies within Harrison's citation of Herodotus (2.52.1) whereby the Pelasgians called their gods theoi prior to adopting specific names.[54]
• its about language regarding harrison and not ethnicity.The same position pelasgicmoon failed to understand.This is on language and yes the assumption from Harisson on it.
• He writes it though surprised.In other instances, however, Herodotus concedes a greater degree of non-Greek influence on Greek. Herodotus' account, for example, of the adoption by the Pelasgians of the names of the gods (2.52.1) suggests a much closer relationship between the Pelasgian and Greek languages. Before they heard the names of the gods, the Pelasgians (assuming, interestingly, the existence of a number of gods[106]) called them simply theoi, on the grounds that they had 'established (thentes) all affairs in their order'. This etymology, advanced apparently in all seriousness,[107] seems to suggest that the Pelasgians spoke a language at least 'akin to' Greek.[108]
• A mere hypothesis but still a hypothesis.Megistias (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Corinth et al.

The article says

- Non-Greek and possibly non-Indo-European roots for many Greek place names in the region,

containing the consonantal strings "-nth-" (e.g. Corinth, Probalinthos),

or its equivalent "-ns-" (e.g. Tiryns);

I had always understood that these names come from the same source as flint and splint and plinth, with the K sound from Corinth resulting from the same sound shit that caused q-Celtic and p-Celtic to differentiate. Note that flint, plinth, Corinth corresponds to the four(Eng), pedwar(Welsh), quattuor(Latin). Probalinthos is then explained as pro-balinthos where pro is a common indo-european prefix. One would expect some variation from place to place in Greece because until relatively modern times, there was a wide variety of dialects and other languages spoken on the territory. Ancient Greek writers have commented on this dialectal variation as well as the existence of non-Greek languages.

Archaeological evidence

Hello to all. I just expanded the "Archaeological evidence" section with some wonderful sourced content. The facts all adhere to WP:RS and if anyone wants me to provide direct quotes, then all anyone has to do is ask. I hope the information will help to further demystify those elusive "Pelasgians". Also, I noticed that someone actually removed the "Pelasgians as Hellenes" section from the article. I am not sure if this is some form of "legal vandalism" since I didn't seem to find any problems with the section (or with the source involved). No offense to anyone, but it's kind of hypocritical to remove an entire sourced section while allowing other theoretical sections to present outdated scholarship to readers. If there was a problem with the "Pelasgians as Hellenes" section, then why not simply revise it or get other users to improve upon it? Personally, I really don't care what language the Pelasgians ultimately spoke. Overall, Deucalionite knows what he is talking about. It really is better to put your faith in archaeological evidence (too many "dime-a-dozen linguistic theories" as he would best put it). Elysonius (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I also added an extra paragraph in the introduction that summarizes the archaeological component of the overall article. The paragraph itself is not in any way meant to push any form of POV. The paragraph is meant to simply reflect the direct evidence shown in the archaeological section. I just want everyone to know that I could care less about who the Pelasgians were or who is related to them today. I just don't care. So, please do not engage in revert wars or fill my discussion page with infantile banter just because the paragraph I inserted has terms like "proto-Greek" and "Mycenean". Alright? Take it easy amigos. Elysonius (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your additions. I hate to keep harking on this issue, but the data and sources you describe in your (fine) evidence sections hardly seems to provide a basis for the summary that "The sites discovered so far possess material evidence indicating that the Pelasgians were either a proto-Greek tribe(s) or at least a tribe(s) akin to the Greeks." Could we have an extra citation for that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I am glad to see that you appreciate my contributions. Currently, I do not have any other reference citations to support my "assessment" of the archaeological data. Therefore, you have every right as an administrator to remove the "problematic sentence" in order to ensure that the article is neutral, accurate, and verifiable.

Before you decide to delete the sentence in my summary, I must explain a few things. First, the paragraph itself was written in as much of a neutral tone as possible. I know that this is unheard of since this article has been barraged by users with "colorful perspectives". Second, the archaeological data collected so far has not been misinterpreted, misquoted, or misread from context. This I am sure of since I double-checked everything off-wiki (yes, I do have a library and access to information databases).

So far, the evidence directly indicates that the Pelasgians were either a proto-Greek tribe(s) or a tribe(s) akin to the Greeks. They were "proto-Greek" in the sense that Pelasgian sites have yielded artifacts archaeologically classified as "Middle Helladic" (or Minyan) and "Late Helladic" (or Mycenean). The Minyans and Myceneans (sans the mythological stories about them), were two types of "proto-Greek" from an archaeological standpoint. The appropriate articles on Wikipedia indicate this quite clearly. Of course, in order to accommodate the Neolithic artifacts discovered in areas traditionally inhabited by Pelasgians, I thought it would be prudent to also write the phrase "akin to Greek". This correlates with the arguments supplied by Procopiou and ancient authors pertaining to "Athenian autochthony" (whatever the term means I don't care).

If the Pelasgians were anything else aside from being "proto-Greek" or "akin to Greek," then I would have reported it without hesitation. I take pride in the legitimacy of my work.

Honestly, I am glad that you are skeptical of me since that shows your competence as an administrator. Overall, I am not here to waste time. If you possess such a burning desire to delete the sentence you find problematic, then by all means do so. However, the archaeological data remains intact since it adheres to all aspects of WP:RS. Have a glorious day. Elysonius (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, sorry, but I can't find anything in those other articles either that would support calling those Helladic cultures "proto-Greek". Of course, there are indications that there is some degree of cultural continuity between those pre-Greek populations and later Greeks (not surprisingly), but the term "proto-Greek" is usually reserved to people who spoke "proto-Greek", i.e. their linguistic ancestors. I see nothing that would support that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of updating the Minyans article since I found some archaeological data that may be of interest to readers. During my research, I noticed that most of the Middle Helladic sites in Greece almost always contained Mycenean artifacts. This indicates that there was a transition between Middle Helladic and Mycenean rather than a significant break. J. L. Caskey conducted excavations during the 1950's at Lerna whereby he discovered that there existed a significant level of continuity from Early Helladic III to Middle Helladic to Mycenean. Therefore, it is not prudent to uphold a linguistically deterministic standpoint on the history of the "proto-Greeks". In learning more about ancient prehistorical cultures, it is essential to take a multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary approach. This is not to say that the proto-Greek language is not a powerful signifier of the existence of a proto-Greek population. However, the existence of populational/cultural continuity from Early Helladic III should indicate that the "proto-Greeks" were older than their own language.

Of course, I really don't care if the Pelasgians or Minyans ultimately turn out to be "pre-Greeks", "proto-Greeks", "non-Greeks", "Indo-Europeans", "Proto-Indo-Europeans", "Pre-Indo-Europeans", or "Kurgans". Like I said before, I don't like to waste time. If you feel that you must remove the sentence you find problematic, then by all means do so. Take it easy and please continue "harking on the issue". It's the only way to get answers these days. Later. Elysonius (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

considerated nationalist theory = necessary not objective?

"Some of them are colored by contemporary nationalist issues and therefore are not objective or are not phrased in objective language."

ok, just demostrate. where is written that a today considered nationalist theory is necessary not objective or prhased in not objective language?

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

i felt necessary to delete it, as in while i am waiting for a demostration.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Put it back in the article mentions referenced albanian nationalism and in past romanian & turk nationalists have used the theory as revanchist "advantage".Megistias (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

for me is not a problem to put back, just bring forward sourced&referenced scholarship book where is written that "contemporary nationalist considered theories are not objective or are phraset in non-objective language"

or, if this is your opinion, write the name of your book and your scholar qualification.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Albanian nationalism is already in the article.Put the sentence back in.We dont have to mention every singel nationalist idiotic idea.Megistias (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

i'm not talking about Malconm, i'm just asking you to demostrate me that "contemporary nationalist considered theories are not objective or are phraset in non-objective language". Can you demostrate or not with sourced&referenced material?

sorry for my skepticism, but, i don't believe your opinion is a reliable source.

Respctfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Its demonstrated if you cant understand it its your problemMegistias (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, sorry but i am new in wikipedia, where is this source? PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Put it back in and ask someone else.Nationalist theories by Albanians,Turks,Romanians and any supporting that they are pelasgians are not objective as they are idiotic and have as targets people of low intellect.Megistias (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

insistence over insistence without essence, Megistias, if you can't demostrate you are sayng nothing to me, and, please, have a civilized language.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your lack of understanding is not a phenomenon shared by the rest of us.Put it back in.Megistias (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

still waiting for a source&reference, Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well this seems familiar.removalMegistias (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

this theory has still currency as a nationam myth... we knew it, and i fact it is cited in the albanian section. and so? where it is written that "contemporary nationalist considered theories are not objective or are phraset in non-objective language"?

Wikipedia need sources, not your reinterpretation of even unrelated sources

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Place it back in.The comment needs no source on it as it is inconsequential and self evident .Megistias (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

taken from the rules of wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources)

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is fundamental to the encyclopedia's policies. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made."

"Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." that's it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PelasgicMoon (talk • contribs) 21:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Now its referenced and sustantiated.Megistias (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And any further removal of it will be vandalism so take care.Megistias (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, now it is demostrated in wikipedia, and i will accept as a claim, that's it.

If i don't have sources, of course i have the right to delete unsourced claims, so i deleted because i felt opportune.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the claim was not "usourced" , when speaking of nationalist claims on a pelasgians article its like nationalists of any affiliations were claiming the Atlanteans.Its pretty evident thought now its sourced as well.Megistias (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

just a question, with this last affermation, you claimed the ex-section "pelasgians as hellen" was nationalist aswell, right?

Have you even read the article once? Harrison isnt Greek nor is it tied to greek nationalism.We have discussed this extensively.For ancient greeks pelasgians were greeks and modern greeks accepting ancient mythology consider the Greeks with no doubt.But its mythology.Megistias (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

heheheheh, (check-mate) the next question is:

was albanians the authors that created the "pelasgian as albanian" theory? they was related with albanian nationalism?

so, for your own opinion, you have a neutral point of view?

... PelasgicMoon (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed and explained this to you many times.It is sourced in the article and explained in here more then enough.You are just trolling now.Megistias (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

mmmh...no was just a question. now i don't need more make questions to you. the current conversation can terminate. PelasgicMoon (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Pelasgians as Hellenes" removal

Shouldn’t we discuss the removal of the whole section before removing it, Fut. Perf.? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you raising this as a merely academic exercise in due process, or do you have something concrete that you actually want discussed about it? The passage consisted of two sentences that were off-topic, one that was speculative OR, one that was a blatant misrepresentation of a source, and one that was just plain wrong. Now, discuss, I'm all ears. Are you aware of a source that actually proposes that Pelasgians were Hellenes? I haven't seen any. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Inscriptional evidence

What exactly is the section titled "inscriptional evidence" supposed to be evidence of? That the name "Pelasgis" existed for the region in question? That doesn't really require extra evidence, does it. Does it teach us anything about the culture, language, ethnic characteristics or otherwise the identity of the original Pelasgians? Obviously not. Is the section supposed to imply that it does? This 2nd cent BC inscription is from deep into the Hellenistic era, when everybody had of course been hellenized for a long time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That it was an actual regions/tribes name and not a wandering "aetherial" name mentioned only in myths and stories.Megistias (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Those inscriptions only show us that there was a region called Pelasgiotis. Its inhabitants were, logically, called Pelasgiotes. Not Pelasgians. The inscription only mentions Πελασγιώτας, clearly as a regional, not an ethnic term, not Πελασγoί. It provides no evidence that these people had a separate "Pelasgian" ethnic or tribal identity, at that time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thessalians are called Thessaliotes and Pelasgians are called Pelasgiotes(just like Ambracians are called in general Ambraciotes).They are "pelasgians".Megistias (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Even like this it showed that the name existed and was not "airy"Megistias (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we know that it existed anyway. It's attested in the literature much earlier than in that inscription. What's the special significance of that inscription? WP:OR? Did you find that inscription on a random search, or was it quoted as something significant somewhere in the secondary literature? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Its a nice addition and points out the names usage region or otherwise.Its not a lever to make a fiery point.Megistias (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the inscriptional evidence adds a nice touch to the article. Of course, that's just my opinion. Elysonius (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll change "evidence" to "attestations" then, it's more neutral and doesn't imply a significance that's apparently not intended. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Attestations are even better, we can add more if we find any in the future.Megistias (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Elysonius (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Structure

Another thing: Is there any particular reason the "theoretical interpretations" section is currently sandwiched between the "literary evidence" section on the one hand, and the "inscriptional" and "archaeological evidence" sections on the other? Shouldn't all "evidence" (or "attestations") sections be together in one row? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the main writer/s of the article took a "break" before finishing the last touches and they will be returning.Megistias (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

GA?

Does anyone think this article is ready for a GA review? Just asking. Personally, I think that the article has come a long way. It is currently stable, all data is sourced, and the pictures are "legal" (to Wikipedia standards). Any thoughts? Elysonius (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite yet, I'm afraid. We are still discussing disagreements about what POVs need to be given how much representation, there's also the issue of the structuring, and I suspect some passages need to be checked for OR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am certain that all of your concerns will be addressed Future Perfect. Elysonius (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

modern scholarship about albanian as pelasgian

"It would be necessary studying the albanian to understand the mysterious pelasgians, to find those elements that the Greeks discovered when arrived in Hellade"

D.Briquel, Paris, 1984, page 2, "Les Pelasges en Italie, Recherches sur l'historie de la legende"

so i felt opportune to add on this affermation:

"This "Pelasgian theory" of Albanian origins was shared by some other 19th-century authors but no longer has support in modern linguistic scholarship"

this added text: "exept significant-minority point of views"

in according to the rules of wikipedia: "Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources, as appropriate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What he proposes is absurd in itself so its not a reliable source.Remove it please.Megistias (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

no problem, just demostrate me he is indoctrinated by something, if you can't, he is reliable,

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Albanians have nothing to do with pelasgians nor do illyrians if albanians have anything to do with them.Pelasgian - Albanian is a known Fringe theory.Megistias (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

my opinion is you are just trying to rebound words, i remember you the rules of wikipedia:

"Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources, as appropriate."

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That is fringe and what got Dodona banned and please stop obsessing over this ridiculous Fringe theory.Its not reliable source .See WP:FRINGE.Megistias (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Briquel does seem to be a reputable scholar. We need to find more about the context of what he is saying there. After what I've seen in this field, I won't trust a single sentence ripped out of context and found on the web somewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The title in english is "Pelasges in Italy, Research on the historie of the legende".Seems irrelevant.Even if he claims that Albanians are Pelasgians despite of what he is its, Obvious pseudoscience:"Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more".Megistias (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dominique Briquel has mostly written on Etruscan and the such.

• La civilisation etrusque,1999
• Les Etrusques: Peuple de la difference,1993
• Les Tyrrhenes: Peuple des tours : Denys d'Halicarnasse et l'autochtonie des Etrusques,1993

Megistias (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He has written or participated in about 40 books about rome,etruscans...briquelMegistias (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

To point out what you just did pelasgicmoon ,you wrote above ""It would be necessary studying the albanian to understand the mysterious pelasgians, to find those elements that the Greeks discovered when arrived in Hellade"D.Briquel, Paris, 1984, page 2, "Les Pelasges en Italie, Recherches sur l'historie de la legende""

• The book is in french you wrote it in English
• He writes on "pelasgians" in italy referring to Etruscans
• The book judging from the obvious title and seeing how others reference it mentions "myths" on names and the such briquel used
• You just made up that part and thought we would just fall for it
• if he had written the Albanian part he would have to be using hallucinogens and alot of them.Megistias (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Megistias, if you don't believe, it's your problem. You can go and buy the book, and leave the provocations please, if you want to provocate wikipedia is not the right place.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pelasgians&diff=198075322&oldid=198052187

Fut.Perf. The User Tsourpk is doing vandalism gestures, deleting my sourced&referenced text without valid reason, please say to him something.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

if the situation will continue in this way for all i write, i will be forced to contact the editor assistance.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, can we keep this a little bit calmer and matter-of-fact please. Megistias, don't get overly polemic; there is nothing inherently absurd about the idea that Albanian might be related to "Pelasgian"; if – counter to my expectations – somebody in the modern literature actually still proposes something like that, then so be it. PelasgicMoon, as I said I'm still rather skeptical about that particular quote. We need more information about what he's actually saying and where. Until then, I'd personally prefer to keep the reference out of the article for the time being, so I'm afraid I can't personally object to Tsourkp's removal (which most certainly was not vandalism). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

this is the text: "It would be necessary studying the albanian to understand the mysterious pelasgians, to find those elements that the Greeks discovered when arrived in Hellade, this elements that perdmitted to the greeks to was who they was (referring about theyr big empire). Albanians look like a population of second hand, hidden from the big nations who written the history."

PelasgicMoon (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your own translation, I assume? How much of the following book actually deals with Albanians? Is he making concrete claims about links between Albanians and Etruscans too? Because Etruscans apparently is what the book is generally about, right? I've ordered the book from the library and will look at it in a few days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

that's it. PelasgicMoon (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I commit an error with the citation, the book is "Albanie ou l’incroyable odyssée d’un peuple préhellénique", Paris, 2003, Aref.M, page 2.

D.Briquel introduces the book with the words i citet ("It would be necessary studying the albanian to understand the mysterious pelasgians, to find those elements that the Greeks discovered when arrived in Hellade"), so this make no difference, so Fut.Perf the right book to order is this, i ask sorry for my error i commit with the researchs.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Aref is a French Albanian and as such might not be a completely non-partisan source. That being said, I can't find anything regarding his book, online, except for random Albanian nationalist sites. The french wiki has a stub on him (funny how it has been edited mostly by Albanians with weird theories and an editor named "Aref") and it seems to imply that he connects "Carians, Lycians, Trojans, Phrygians, Lydians, Thracians, Illyrians etc." to "Pelasgians", modern Albanians being their only descendants, of course. Older versions of this article mentioned Aref as supporting the A-P connection but the general trimming of (wild?) theories (I seem to recall a Georgian connection too) left those out. The Mycenaeans were Pelasgians as well and Greeks were semites (I'm not sure if the semitic connection is supported only by his followers and not him, though...). Yeah, I know, attacks of little substance. 3rdAlcove (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Aref is hardly an author independent of what we are already coverning with the "Albanian national myth" part. As for Briquel's preface, one wonders why he is using the conditional in his expression "it would be necessary". Is he summarising what Aref is saying, possibly without endorsing it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just remove it.Its obvious pseudoscience to say the least.See WP:FRINGE.If this goes in you can expect swarms of other fringe theories popping up all over the place.Megistias (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not verifiable and obvious pseudoscience garbage.

• front cover,The book...
• [1]Megistias (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And Briqeul prefaces this book not the one(Not the first or the second...) that pelasgicmoon says.Grèce : (Mycéniens = Pélasges) ou la solution d'une énigme (Broché)

de Mathieu Aref (Auteur), Dominique Briquel (Préface) . [2] Megistias (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

3rdAlcove, you can't consider a website "nationalist" just because this theory is cited, else this is censuration.

About Aref, yes, he is half french half albanian, but i'm not talking about him, but about the D.Briquel words introduction, these are not resumed or reinterpreted from Aref, and neither my own interpretation (i just translated), for further proves it can be ordered the book (2003), more than citing sources i can't do nothing,

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is fringe remove it.Its obvious fringe even if it says those things.Actually if it supports even just albanian pelasgian its more then fringe.Its replacing aryans of the nazi's with pelasgians.Same attributes and merely the name changes.Its ultranationalist supremacist trash.Megistias (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Briquel doesnt even preface this as i illustrated above.This is another of pelasgicmoons "Albanie ou l’incroyable odyssée d’un peuple préhellénique", Paris, 2003, Aref.M, page 2, introduced from D.Briquel" modifications.Megistias (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Albanian supremacist, surely! Did the 'semitic' connection tick you off? :) Future, as a linguist, should just give us a free(!) history lesson(!) (tell us something about Hans Krahe, dammit) regarding the linguistic treatment of the Albanian-Illyrian-Pelasgian connection. If it's a prominent minority that (still) accept that connection, it should be mentioned of course. If it's of the Alexander "Born like in the Dream" III kind, though... 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"The french wiki has a stub on him (funny how it has been edited mostly by Albanians with weird theories and an editor named "Aref")"

3rdAlcove, you want the number of greeks working here in the pelasgian section actually?

Megistias, you are accusing me to bring falsified sources? PelasgicMoon (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Indicated by the links above you falsified them by mistake or on purpose many times in your endeavour.Megistias (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we get some sourced quotes from the mainstream into the article? The present game of deleting and reverting the section is not helping Wikipedia.--Wetman (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Pausanias

Does anyone have access to Pausanias's works? The section entitled "Pausanias" (used to be entitled "In Pausanias") has remained empty for a long time. Any thoughts? Elysonius (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

He makes a great number of mentiones ,26 alone in attica.Megistias (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Archaeological evidence?

I would hate to upset anyone here but I find this whole section a bit misleading. The use of the name Pelasgian in archaeological contexts is mainly generic and no specific prehistoric culture of mainland Greece has ever been termed as such by modern archaeologists or anthropologists (to my knowledge, that is). The term was often used by 19th century scholars and by Tsountas -the first excavator of Neolithic Thessaly who was careful enough to speak about Thessalian A and B instead of "Pelasgian A and B" when it came to periodisation-, but it's usage has changed since. The most authoritative books on Prehistoric Greece are by Δημήτρης Θεοχάρης, Νεολιθική Ελλάς (1972¹) and Emily Vermeule Greece in the Bronze Age (1965¹). In both works the word Pelasgian is coined as an umbrella term including several prehistoric populations and cultures for lack of a better description. Of course a lot has changed in scholarship after the publication of these important monographs, but the usage of the word remains more or less the same. In bibliography one seldom comes up with terms like Pelasgian pottery, Pelasgian architecture, Pelasgian burrial customs, Pelasgian religion etc., which wouldn't mean much to a modern scholar. The established terminology has things like Upper / Final /Middle Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Early Helladic etc. or words deriving from pottery styles, like the Urfirnis culture, or from excavated sites, like the Dimini or Sesclo Culture etc. Occasionally, mythological names are used to define pottery, as in gray "Minyan" ware and that can sometimes be the case with the word "Pelasgian". This should not be taken as something other than a conventional description. The passage referring to Athens speaks of pottery similar to well known Thessalian wares, but in archaeological discourse this does not necessarily imply a direct connection. The remark that the ceramic findings from Athens "confirmed the traditions recorded by Herodotus that the Athenians were descended from the Pelasgians, the neolithic inhabitants of Thessaly" should be taken as a confirmation of an ancient tradition referring to the mythical inhabitants of Thessaly and their relation to the prehistoric pre-hellenic inhabitants of Athens and not as some kind of direct evidence to the existence of a specific population group going by the name Pelasgians. At any rate I would be rather careful with this whole quotation. Interestingly enough Procopiou and Simth a bit later in the same passage suggest that Excavations carried out by the American Classical School near the Clepshydra uncovered twenty-one wells and countless pieces of handmade pottery, sherds of Dimini type but Sara Anderson Immerwahr in her definitive publication of the agora and the clepsydra material (The Athenian Agora monographs, Vol. 13, The Neolithic and Bronze Ages, 1971)unequivocally states in p. 19, "It is the Late Neolithic period that provides most of our parallels, yet, curiously, the striking Dimini-type painted wares of Thessaly are completely lacking, and there is only one small recognisable sherd of the related Mattpainted ware of Central and Southern Greece". A single non diagnostic sherd hardly qualifies as "sherds". It is true though -as it is stated in the Procopiou - Smith quotation that Dimini style pottery has been unearthed elsewhere in Athens. I could go on and on like that for pages, but I'm going to stop here for the time being. I have seen (to my dismay) that this topic has generated a lot of heated and sometimes ghastly debate, I would hate to start another row and I ask from everyboy in here to assume good faith and try to read my arguments with an open mind. All comments will be welcome--79.166.176.0 --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to speak to Elysonius about all this. As for me, I am glad to see that you have brought sources to this discussion. Nevertheless, even if modern archaeologists use "Pelasgians" as a conventional term to describe a pre-Greek (or even proto-Greek) population, this does not change the fact that there exists archaeological evidence connecting the "Pelasgians" with the Greeks. The evidence isn't perfect mind you, but it has come a long way. Deucalionite (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I will start by thanking you very much for your comment. I have to admit though that I am not sure whether I understand your argument - pray correct me if I get it wrong. Since you seem to understand that the usage of the term by archaeologists is indeed conventional, than you must also comprehend that the archaeological evidence is not about "pelasgians" as such. Archaeological evidence is not a general idea and in no way limited to the conventional use of a name by an archaeologist. It is true that names are often used arbitrarily in the prehistoric archaeology of Greece, as in Minoans, Mycenenans... But these terms always refer to compact, recognisable and tangible cultural entities. There is for instance a distinct Mycenenan or Minoan pottery, architecture, religion, etc and we can trace Mycenenan or Minoan presence in the Mediterranean through characteristic Minoan or Mycenean artifacts. This is not the case with "Pelasgians". If by archaeological evidence you mean a passing reference to Pelasgians in a Skourta Plain Project report or a 1927 reference to the completely unrelated Lemnos findings, than you are misintepreting (uknowingly, I am sure) the quotations. As far as the link between Pelasgians and Greeks is concerned, the only thing I can say is that if by Pelasgians you mean the prehellenic populations in mainland Greece than the connection is obvious. At the end of the Early Helladic period a new indoeuropean population (or several indoeuropean populations) arrived in mainland Greece (their origin is still debated) and mingled with the already existing prehellenic substratum creating the characteristic Middle Helladic culture. It is through this process that the proto greek population emerged. Mind you, what I write here is not some kind of personal theory or interpretation but a rather short summary of the mainstream academic view. I can provide ample bibliographical reference if you wish me to. I think that the whole section must be omited or radically edited. I would like to know what you think about it --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)