GREEK PREHISTORY AND IE (EVIDENCE?)

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/28/99 12:25:17 AM, sarima at ix.netcom.com wrote:

<<What I *heard* was a strong suggestion that the continuity of cultures is
evidence *against* an IE incursion at that time.  Of course neither is it
evidence *for* such an incursion.  The conclusion that an incursion occurred
at around that time is developed from other lines of evidence.>>

We are talking about a period between roughly 2650BC - 1650BC in mainland
Greece.  My statement was that there is no serious material evidence of a
significant immigration during that period, EXCEPT from Anatolia.

If there are other "lines of evidence" of an "incursion" from the north, I'd
very much like to hear what they are.

Thoreau said something like: some inferences are as obvious as a trout in the
milk pail.

During the period in time we are talking about, we DO see plain evidence of a
major migration, the only evidence of a change in population.  We DO see
evidence that migration resulted 100s of years later in a clash of cultural
groups and warfare - the only substantial evidence of warfare in the period.
We DO see strong evidence that the migration did not come from the north but
came from Anatolia.

What's the obvious inference?  That migrations do leave evidence.  And that
the warfare later resulting from these cultural differences do leave
evidence.  So why didn't any incursion from the north leave evidence?  The
inference is that it may not have happened.

If above you mean by an "IE incursion," a movement of IE - speaking peoples
from the north, the question becomes where is the evidence?  Any evidence.

<<Nor can it be used to *deny* such things as it stands.>>

It does not seem unreasonable to suppose that there was no significant
incursion during this period from the north into mainland Greece.  It seems
possible to *deny* its likelihood.

As far as I know the theory that IE speakers came into Greece for the first
time from the direction of the Ukraine is based on old assumptions that can
no longer be supported by very much evidence.  There is nothing to suppose
that IE speakers were not already present in Greece when the Anatolian
migration began c.2400 or that the migration did not represent IE speakers.
The continuity of settlements right into the Mycenaean age suggests nothing
else but THAT IF IndoEuropean speakers first came during this period, they
came from Anatolia.  Neither the horse, the wheel, metal nor weapons show
evidence of playing a major part in the expansion of the Anatolian culture
during this period.  If anything, we can attribute it to the advantages of
increased population in the Anatolian influenced zone.  There is also the
factor of the sea - the older Korakou culture seems to have avoided exposing
its settlements to easy access from the sea.

I would suggest that the legitimacy of any theory dealing with this time and
place would need to deal with the evidence as its found.  The evidence that
exists in this case is particularly strong and does need to be accounted for.
 It really does not seem to be satisfactory to suggest that an IE dialect(s)
from the north became the dominant language of Greece without leaving any
significant evidence of arriving there, while major changes in population and
culture coming from Asia Minor are somehow irrelevant to the language issue.

Regards,
Steve Long