DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9804#0179
ETEO-CRETAN AND MINOAN 153
is right in his view that their language is Indo-European,
we may see a reason why the Greeks gave them their
name. We know of no other non-Greek Indo-Europeans
in the Greek mainland or the islands. The Greeks would
have called the Minoans Phoinikes,1 or Pelasgoi, or what
not. They would have met men of their race elsewhere.
These Italic Indo-Europeans alone were peculiar to
Crete. What more natural than that they should call
them the True Cretans ? " Eteokretisch " need not be
the same as " Urkretisch," however easy it may be to
confuse the two.!
If it is argued that this view is against the general
impression of later ages ' that the Eteo-Cretans represent
the original inhabitants, it may be answered that this
later tradition, as we find it for instance in Diodorus,1
is too obscure to warrant any inference from it except
the extremely mixed character of the population. The
traditions of Praesos itself, however, as preserved by
Herodotus," are in fact well explained by the theory we
have been advancing. Prasos is regarded as distinct
from the dominion of Minos, and is not involved in its
ruin. As Minos represented the great days of Crete,
and the temptation to claim kinship with him must have
been considerable, the absence of such a claim on the part
of the Prsesians suggests a strong and ancient tradition.
1 See p. 141.
2 E.g. Hall, O.C.G. pp. 87-90, where he assumes that Eteo-
Crctans arc what we now call Minoans. There is nothing whatever
in ancient tradition to connect the name Eteo-Crctan with
Knossos.
3 E.g. Strabo, p. 475. He thinks that both Cydonians and
Eteo-Cretans are autochthonous, which is only another way of
saying that both are pre-Dorian.
* iv. 60, v. So. For an attempt to explain these passages, see
R. Mcister, S.G.W. xxiv. pt. 3, pp. 63-4.
s vii. 170-1. Evans in J.H.S. xiv. p. 357, note 43, explained
the tradition differently. He has not since that date (1S94)
commented on the matter.
is right in his view that their language is Indo-European,
we may see a reason why the Greeks gave them their
name. We know of no other non-Greek Indo-Europeans
in the Greek mainland or the islands. The Greeks would
have called the Minoans Phoinikes,1 or Pelasgoi, or what
not. They would have met men of their race elsewhere.
These Italic Indo-Europeans alone were peculiar to
Crete. What more natural than that they should call
them the True Cretans ? " Eteokretisch " need not be
the same as " Urkretisch," however easy it may be to
confuse the two.!
If it is argued that this view is against the general
impression of later ages ' that the Eteo-Cretans represent
the original inhabitants, it may be answered that this
later tradition, as we find it for instance in Diodorus,1
is too obscure to warrant any inference from it except
the extremely mixed character of the population. The
traditions of Praesos itself, however, as preserved by
Herodotus," are in fact well explained by the theory we
have been advancing. Prasos is regarded as distinct
from the dominion of Minos, and is not involved in its
ruin. As Minos represented the great days of Crete,
and the temptation to claim kinship with him must have
been considerable, the absence of such a claim on the part
of the Prsesians suggests a strong and ancient tradition.
1 See p. 141.
2 E.g. Hall, O.C.G. pp. 87-90, where he assumes that Eteo-
Crctans arc what we now call Minoans. There is nothing whatever
in ancient tradition to connect the name Eteo-Crctan with
Knossos.
3 E.g. Strabo, p. 475. He thinks that both Cydonians and
Eteo-Cretans are autochthonous, which is only another way of
saying that both are pre-Dorian.
* iv. 60, v. So. For an attempt to explain these passages, see
R. Mcister, S.G.W. xxiv. pt. 3, pp. 63-4.
s vii. 170-1. Evans in J.H.S. xiv. p. 357, note 43, explained
the tradition differently. He has not since that date (1S94)
commented on the matter.