For starters -
All those who were designated as Pelasgian/Pelasgoi [Tyrsenoi/Arkades/Aigialees] in classical History;
The problem is that the designations used by ancient authors are often vage, and should be questioned if they actually hold up as valid definitions for ethnic or linguistic groups.
Yes; acc. to my definition Pelasgian is a part of the pre-Greek (pre-Indo-European Hellenic) population but not a substrate in Greek; Because my understanding of your premise and expectations to find a Pelasgian substrate in Greek is false;
The premise isn't false. Greek very much has a share of vocabulary that it hasn't inherited from Proto-Indo-European (an example would be "
χρυσος", gold, and "
ξιφος", sword, which both can be linked with the Semitic languages), and its likely to assume that this is a substrate (or, perhaps, an adstrate). The problem really starts when you make far-out assumptions like claiming that the substrate was Indo-European. As I said, its probably that one of the Pre-Greek languages certainly was Minoan, but since the language itself is virtually undeciphered (Linear A), we do not know for certain. My point is merely that if the Etruscans (and related languages, including Lemnian) were originally native to Greece we should expect an Etruscan/Lemnian/Raetic substrate in the language. Since we do not see it, my hunch is that - Lemnos excluded for obvious reasons - there is no evidence for an extensive Etruscan settlement in Greece.
In contrast, if the Etruscans were originally from Anatolia, however, the situation is a lot less clear as the ethnic makeup of the peninsula was changed multiple times over before the Hellenistic period, so it might be that some of the linguistic evidence we look for is now lost.
What
Lemnian substrate is there in Greek?
Thucydides (IV/CIX) describes that the Pelasgians - specifically the
Tyrrheno-Pelasgians - inhabited Lemnos; From Archaeology and Linguistics we know that the Language on all the inscriptions from Lemnos and Etruria are of an identical language and correspond with Hellanicus (
Phoronis) Dionysius (I/XVII-XVIII) and Herodotus (I/XCIV) describing a Pelasgian migration into Italy and derive them to be the ancestors of the Etruscans;
Based on that Lemnian and Etruscan are
a (
maybe the) Pelasgian language; It does not get any more clearer than Ancient Historians describing them as Pelasgians (common/same people) and Archaeology and Linguistics confirming a belonging to a common language family - i.e. having identical languages;
What this non-Greek substrate is i do not know but its not Etruscan or Lemnian - which are the only languages fit to be Pelasgian; And that no Pelasgian substrate exists in Greek is not surprising from Herodotus (I/LVII) - keeping in mind that Pelasgian was still spoken in his times on the Hellespont;
The Raeti and the peoples of Raetia is something me and Sile have already discussed on another thread -
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...olates-identified-in-the-eastern-Italian-Alps
Just a quick summery (sources in the thread above):
The Alpine section of Raetia was non-Indo-European Raeti and Indo-European Illyrian the Veneti further south being equally Illyrian as the Vindelici (Genauni/Breuni);
The Vindelici were evidently Celtic, as evidenced by even the name itself (plus other names, notably Kempten,
Cambodunum), and little to do with the Illyrians. I'd also be careful with the ad-hoc identification of the Veneti as "Illyrians". Based on the names found in their area, there appears to be a connection between the Liburnians and the Veneti, but the Dalmatians were unrelated (they are also, in my current opinion, the best candidates for the ancestors of the current Albanians, but I do not wish to start on that matter in here).
The point I was trying to make is that the concept of "Rhaetians" that the Romans is a very vage one, and it does not hold up to a closer analysis, since the "Rhaetians" can be boiled down into different ethnolinguistic groups.
The Alpine section of Noricum was Indo-European Keltic;
The Raeti would be the independent remnant of the Neolithic pop. (passage in Strabo) not the subjugated one i.e by emerging Indo-Europeans;
Raetic is not identical (1to1) with Etruscan and so the similarities could be a broader connection and not a specific one;
Thats the fable of the Keltic prince-brothers Segovesus and Bellovesus - recorded by Livius and Plinius;
The reason the 600 BC Keltic migration of Prince Bellovesus remains a fable is because it does not correspond to Archaeology; No changes/breaks in the Po-valley (Golasecca) and no changes/breaks in the Alpine area (Laugen-Melaun); Which would be a necessary must with such migrations; On the other hand the Keltic/Gauls migration of Livius and Plinius of 400 BC shows all these necessary Archaeological (LaTene) changes and inputs;
Whatever the source of that story by Livy is, I wasn't refering to it. I was refering to the La-Tene expansion.
Another aspect is of course the language - if it were Etruscans from the Po-valley lead by Raetus than Raetic itself would not differ that greatly to Etruscan it would be / should be exactly the same;
Stop. You're making an assumption here that I did not. Namely that the annectode of Raetus is necessarily to be held true to the word, and that the name "Raetians" explicitly applies to the "real" Raetians.
There is no necessary reason it should be "exactly the same". First off, despite the relatively limited corpus, Etruscan is known to have had a bit of variability in it (the Cortona Tablet is an example that immediately comes to my mind). Also, look at the modern world. I'm not talking about the differences between American and British English (though that's an example, too), but look at the difference between English spoken around London, and the English of Yorkshire. Or, in German, the difference between Hessian and Kölsch. Why should a Raetian from the area around (modern) Bolzano have spoken exactly the same language as someone from, say, Tarquinia?
