The name Pelasgians (Ancient Greek: Πελασγοί, romanized: Pelasgoí, singular: Πελασγός Pelasgós) was used by Classical Greek writers to refer either to the predecessors of the Greeks, or to all the inhabitants of Greece before the emergence of the Greeks. In general, “Pelasgian” has come to mean more broadly all the indigenous inhabitants of the Aegean Sea region and their cultures.
It depends on what you mean by “existed”. They’re the ancestors of Greeks, and they lived in what is now Greece, but didn’t call themselves that name. As a Greek, to me they’re “Greek by ascent”, so the distinction is a bit trivial.
Well it would be like calling native Americans ‘New Yorkers’ because they lived in the same area. There was definitely no New York and no Greece back then so makes no sense to call them that.
The analogy isn’t quite right. It’s more like, hypothetically, if those native people were left relatively undisturbed and not displaced. Then, hundreds of years later, their descendents are now a large proportion of New York. I would probably call them New Yorkers, yes. I don’t know much about Native American history, so let me know if I’m off the mark somewhere here.
I say “relatively” because Greek people had a lot of… let’s say… neighbourly troubles, and it got very “complicated” for a long time. But we still call the people living there Greek, even if their bloodline DNA is very mixed bag now. I did an Ancestry thing out of curiosity, so I should know, even though my family and I are 100% born there.
I’d say the analogy is good. We can look at other countries. There was a time when Rome was all over Europe. But we aren’t going to call the Romans in present day England the English? There’s hundreds of years of breeding taking place with Saxons, celts, norse, etc.
I’ll raise a counterpoint then: how many independent countries are now known as “China”? The difference is that the Roman Empire fell apart, and everyone kind of reverted to their original culture or became something new. Same thing happened in Greece after the centuries-long Turkish occupation and war crimes complicated events.
The analogy is very messy now and it doesn’t make sense anymore ~😂~. But I guess the end result is that it’s not so simple at which point one nation ends and another begins. Real history is messy and once you actually look into it, it’s not a simple thing at all.
In the first place “Greece” wasn’t even one thing, it was a messy collection of city-states and alliances that kind of got along sometimes. I think many places in the world was like that back then, actually. Then Alexander the Great happened and a lot of the world was Greece. Then it wasn’t. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So yeah. You can make things as complicated or as simple as you feel like.
Level 1 complicated: it’s a 9000 year old ancient Greek skeleton
Level 2: it’s an ancient skeleton found in what is now known as Greece
Level 3: it’s a Pelasgian skeleton
I wouldn’t call level 1 “incorrect”. I would call it “simplified”. People who know Greece didn’t exist 9000 years ago will already know the truth. Everyone else won’t really care. But I know many people here on Lemmy are “semantics enthusiasts”.
it’s a 9000 year old ancient Greek ancestor skeleton would be correct. I get the triviality of arguing over semantics, but this is a science post where the semantics do actually matter, even if they are adjacent to the actual thing
Details matter. Especially if were going to talk about a reconstruction of a person from a given time period. That 9000k old recreation of a teenager isn’t going to look anything like an actual teenager from ancient Greece.
When historians and scientists show recreations of the cavemen in Lascaux cave, they aren’t wearing berets, eating baguettes, and no one refers to them as 20k year old French people.
Um guys… I don’t think Greece existed 9000 years ago.
https://www.delphimuseum.gr/2025/02/greek-history.html?m=1
It depends on what you mean by “existed”. They’re the ancestors of Greeks, and they lived in what is now Greece, but didn’t call themselves that name. As a Greek, to me they’re “Greek by ascent”, so the distinction is a bit trivial.
Well it would be like calling native Americans ‘New Yorkers’ because they lived in the same area. There was definitely no New York and no Greece back then so makes no sense to call them that.
Columbus: What a curious continent! Ahoy native person, where might I find some gold and child slaves?
Indigenous New Yorker: I’m walkin’ 'ere!
That needs to be a Bill and Ted style time travel movie asap
The analogy isn’t quite right. It’s more like, hypothetically, if those native people were left relatively undisturbed and not displaced. Then, hundreds of years later, their descendents are now a large proportion of New York. I would probably call them New Yorkers, yes. I don’t know much about Native American history, so let me know if I’m off the mark somewhere here.
I say “relatively” because Greek people had a lot of… let’s say… neighbourly troubles, and it got very “complicated” for a long time. But we still call the people living there Greek, even if their bloodline DNA is very mixed bag now. I did an Ancestry thing out of curiosity, so I should know, even though my family and I are 100% born there.
I’d say the analogy is good. We can look at other countries. There was a time when Rome was all over Europe. But we aren’t going to call the Romans in present day England the English? There’s hundreds of years of breeding taking place with Saxons, celts, norse, etc.
I’ll raise a counterpoint then: how many independent countries are now known as “China”? The difference is that the Roman Empire fell apart, and everyone kind of reverted to their original culture or became something new. Same thing happened in Greece after the
centuries-long Turkish occupation and war crimescomplicated events.The analogy is very messy now and it doesn’t make sense anymore ~😂~. But I guess the end result is that it’s not so simple at which point one nation ends and another begins. Real history is messy and once you actually look into it, it’s not a simple thing at all.
In the first place “Greece” wasn’t even one thing, it was a messy collection of city-states and alliances that kind of got along sometimes. I think many places in the world was like that back then, actually. Then Alexander the Great happened and a lot of the world was Greece. Then it wasn’t.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯So yeah. You can make things as complicated or as simple as you feel like.
Level 1 complicated: it’s a 9000 year old ancient Greek skeleton
Level 2: it’s an ancient skeleton found in what is now known as Greece
Level 3: it’s a Pelasgian skeleton
I wouldn’t call level 1 “incorrect”. I would call it “simplified”. People who know Greece didn’t exist 9000 years ago will already know the truth. Everyone else won’t really care. But I know many people here on Lemmy are “semantics enthusiasts”.
Level 1 is definitely wrong.
it’s a 9000 year old ancient Greek ancestor skeleton would be correct. I get the triviality of arguing over semantics, but this is a science post where the semantics do actually matter, even if they are adjacent to the actual thing
Details matter. Especially if were going to talk about a reconstruction of a person from a given time period. That 9000k old recreation of a teenager isn’t going to look anything like an actual teenager from ancient Greece.
When historians and scientists show recreations of the cavemen in Lascaux cave, they aren’t wearing berets, eating baguettes, and no one refers to them as 20k year old French people.