The Ethnology of EuropeLatham, R. G. (Robert Gordon)
History
The Ethnology of Europe
Latham, R. G. (Robert Gordon)
Ethnology -- Europe
2. Thucydides, those of Cleonæ, Dium, and Olophyxus on the peninsula of
Mount Athos.
The Pelasgi of the third locality, the Asiatic Pelasgi, or the
Herodotean Pelasgi of the parts about Plakia and Skylake, near Cyzicus,
may reasonably be considered as settlers of comparatively recent origin,
both from the general phenomena of ethnological distribution, and the
most scientific interpretation of the few _data_ we possess for the
ancient ethnology of Asia Minor.
But the Pelasgi of Chreston and Mount Athos, are in localities wherein
they may as easily be aboriginal as intrusive. Which were they? I cannot
make up my mind; I can only exhaust the two alternatives. If aboriginal,
they were one of three things, Skipetar, Slavonic, or members of an
extinct stock; if intrusive, members of some extinct stock, Asiatic or
Italian. How they may have been, this is easily understood.
1. An eastern extension of the oldest Skipetar area would carry a
population akin to the ancestors of the present Albanians as far as the
Ægean.
2. A southern extension of the Thracian area would carry the ancient
Thracian stock as far as Thessaly.
3. Semitic, or other Asiatic colonies, would give us a series of
maritime settlements.
4. So would a series of very early Italian colonizations. These we may
deduce from some part of Italy, different from the mother-country of the
true Hellenic Greeks; and we may, also, assume a difference in the date
of the movement. In such a case the Pelasgi may have been Hellenic, as
the Anglo-Saxons were Scandinavian; in other words, out of two Italian
colonizations one (the Pelasgic) may have been the analogue to the
Angle, the other (the Hellenic) to the Danish invasion of Britain.
Of these alternatives I prefer the second and fourth to the first and
third.
The name itself seems to have been applied to one stock only, not to
several--though the evidence of this is by no means conclusive.
It seems not to have been _native_. Native names are, usually, more
specific and less general. It was a name which A gave to B, not one
which B gave itself.
It seems to have been originally other than Greek.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account