<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Aug 7 2009, 01:16 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Aug 7 2009, 01:16 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->All those accounts are trying to tell a story in fragments. Connect the proto Greeks or Pelesagians to the people who dwelt in Deccan. Deccan still has many godesses (all manifestations of Devi) not fully catalogued.[right][snapback]100172[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->How and why tie Somebody's Dilmun Deccan theories with Pelasgians? Nothing in post #345 on the Pelasgians had a bearing on it. At least Indians can leave the Pelasgians, Greeks out of it until they have irrefutable data to involve them.
"All those accounts are trying to tell a story in fragments."
That is the case with unknown history. But the questionmarks are not an invitation for people in our time to theorise or invent a story based on other theories that are entirely unrelated.
Else one would have to consider thousands of theories, many of them more likely.
The Pelasgians have something to do with the Greeks and the lands of Greece. Either they were ancestral to the Greeks or they weren't. There's now a political angle too. Further, IE entered the picture ("modern theories" section of the Greek page on Pelasgians).
Also interesting is that a key Greek religious word - Olympos, where the hence <i>Olympic</i> Gods reside, it is their <i>home</i> - has origins in what is deemed to be non-IE (Pelasgian, Proto-Pelasgian in fact) even though the Olympic Gods themselves are bracketed into "IE mythology".
I excerpted the statements on Goddesses <i>only</i> because it illustrated a typical instance of IE Studies' habit of relegating all things that don't occur in Common-IE to "therefore" not being part of those branches of people regarded as IE: e.g. if element A occurs among Greeks but is not common to other IE branches, then element A is immediately considered Not Greek either, "because Greeks are IE and A is not in IE". This is what is done to various elements of the subcontinent's Dharmic civilisation as well.
The Goddess example also does not require a Dilmun Deccan theory to explain anything. Even if it were the case that the proto-Pelasgians were non-Greeks and had bequeathed certain Gods and particularly Goddesses to the Greeks, the Pelasgians themselves could be (and in all likelihood were) native to the Mediterranean, and so too their religion. Where does the Deccan come into it? It is not as if other people of the world do not have religions and cultures of their own generation and ancestry of their own. It's not as if the entire world is Either IE Or has to fall into some Catch-All Theory B. It is entirely possible and quite consistent with much known of history that, were the Pelasgians separate from and pre-Greek, they may merely be an "aboriginal" population of the Greek regions - like the modern day Basques are considered to be elsewhere in the Mediterranean - and quite capable of developing their own religioculture without Indian involvement. (Including how a great many indigenous populations and their religiocultures do have/had vast numbers of Gods, Goddesses that are not Indian in origin - this was the <i>natural</i> state of religioculture before christianism.) Hard data to the contrary that directly involves the Pelasgians is required to argue otherwise.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What is radiate in Roma language? In Sumerian?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What do Roma have to do with the Pelasgians? Roma only left the Indian subcontinent after the 11th/12th century and are thought to be from the Punjab region of India and Pakistan, from where they ended up in Afghanistan and travelled further). It is <i>thereafter</i> that they arrived in Europe.
The Pelasgians were written about as historical - or memories of the people and their culture were - in Herodotus' time, and were mentioned in Homer's epics.
If one absolutely wanted to find some connection between the Roma and the Pelasgians (still don't understand why this attempt to tie Pelasgians into the Dilmun Deccan theory or to India in general, without any actual data to go by), the direction of travel for the word "Lampo" (radiate) would then have to be from the earlier Pelasgians to the very recent Roma in Europe. Moreover, Lampo is Proto-Pelasgian making it much earlier still.
And Sumerian stuff is mostly new agey pseudoscholarship. It is very hard to get any facts about it. Again, there is very little data, yet lots of elaborate stories have been built on it in the west ("data <i>interpretation</i>").
<b>ADDED:</b>
And before I get into trouble for criticising elders/my betters/the more intelligent/the more important -
The above was not meant as personal criticism. It was more general. Quite a few Indians have a tendency to latch onto new theories (sometimes even new agey ideas) that have nothing to do with history and then use it as a black hole to pull other peoples into. Want Indians to leave other people alone until there is hard data like genetics to involve those others.
"All those accounts are trying to tell a story in fragments."
That is the case with unknown history. But the questionmarks are not an invitation for people in our time to theorise or invent a story based on other theories that are entirely unrelated.
Else one would have to consider thousands of theories, many of them more likely.
The Pelasgians have something to do with the Greeks and the lands of Greece. Either they were ancestral to the Greeks or they weren't. There's now a political angle too. Further, IE entered the picture ("modern theories" section of the Greek page on Pelasgians).
Also interesting is that a key Greek religious word - Olympos, where the hence <i>Olympic</i> Gods reside, it is their <i>home</i> - has origins in what is deemed to be non-IE (Pelasgian, Proto-Pelasgian in fact) even though the Olympic Gods themselves are bracketed into "IE mythology".
I excerpted the statements on Goddesses <i>only</i> because it illustrated a typical instance of IE Studies' habit of relegating all things that don't occur in Common-IE to "therefore" not being part of those branches of people regarded as IE: e.g. if element A occurs among Greeks but is not common to other IE branches, then element A is immediately considered Not Greek either, "because Greeks are IE and A is not in IE". This is what is done to various elements of the subcontinent's Dharmic civilisation as well.
The Goddess example also does not require a Dilmun Deccan theory to explain anything. Even if it were the case that the proto-Pelasgians were non-Greeks and had bequeathed certain Gods and particularly Goddesses to the Greeks, the Pelasgians themselves could be (and in all likelihood were) native to the Mediterranean, and so too their religion. Where does the Deccan come into it? It is not as if other people of the world do not have religions and cultures of their own generation and ancestry of their own. It's not as if the entire world is Either IE Or has to fall into some Catch-All Theory B. It is entirely possible and quite consistent with much known of history that, were the Pelasgians separate from and pre-Greek, they may merely be an "aboriginal" population of the Greek regions - like the modern day Basques are considered to be elsewhere in the Mediterranean - and quite capable of developing their own religioculture without Indian involvement. (Including how a great many indigenous populations and their religiocultures do have/had vast numbers of Gods, Goddesses that are not Indian in origin - this was the <i>natural</i> state of religioculture before christianism.) Hard data to the contrary that directly involves the Pelasgians is required to argue otherwise.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What is radiate in Roma language? In Sumerian?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What do Roma have to do with the Pelasgians? Roma only left the Indian subcontinent after the 11th/12th century and are thought to be from the Punjab region of India and Pakistan, from where they ended up in Afghanistan and travelled further). It is <i>thereafter</i> that they arrived in Europe.
The Pelasgians were written about as historical - or memories of the people and their culture were - in Herodotus' time, and were mentioned in Homer's epics.
If one absolutely wanted to find some connection between the Roma and the Pelasgians (still don't understand why this attempt to tie Pelasgians into the Dilmun Deccan theory or to India in general, without any actual data to go by), the direction of travel for the word "Lampo" (radiate) would then have to be from the earlier Pelasgians to the very recent Roma in Europe. Moreover, Lampo is Proto-Pelasgian making it much earlier still.
And Sumerian stuff is mostly new agey pseudoscholarship. It is very hard to get any facts about it. Again, there is very little data, yet lots of elaborate stories have been built on it in the west ("data <i>interpretation</i>").
<b>ADDED:</b>
And before I get into trouble for criticising elders/my betters/the more intelligent/the more important -
The above was not meant as personal criticism. It was more general. Quite a few Indians have a tendency to latch onto new theories (sometimes even new agey ideas) that have nothing to do with history and then use it as a black hole to pull other peoples into. Want Indians to leave other people alone until there is hard data like genetics to involve those others.
Death to traitors.