JoatSimeon at JoatSimeon at
Sat Dec 11 19:55:54 UTC 1999

>X99Lynx at writes:

>That migrations do leave evidence.

-- some do.  Some don't.

>It does not seem unreasonable to suppose that there was no significant
>incursion during this period from the north into mainland Greece.

-- well, yes, actually it does.  See above.

>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 linguistic relationship of Greek, Armenian and Indo-Iranian suggests a
quite recent divergence when they're first recorded.

>to suggest that an IE dialect(s) from the north became the dominant language
>of Greece without leaving any significant evidence of arriving there

-- why not?  There are plenty of historically-attested instances of
linguistic succession that didn't leave any archaeological traces to speak of.

You've got to get over this assumption that linguistic events are going to
leave unmistakable traces in the stones-and-bones record.

More information about the Indo-european mailing list