GREEK PREHISTORY AND LANGUAGE

[Stanley Friesen]

[ Moderator's note:
  I have combined two messages from Mr. Friesen into this single posting, since
  the second was additional commentary on the first.
  --rma ]

At 11:36 PM 10/16/99 -0400, X99Lynx at aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 10/15/99 7:43:37 AM, sarima at ix.netcom.com wrote:

><<I sometimes think the critics of linguistic archaeology make too much of
>this sort of continuity.  In a mixing of cultures in which one language
>eventually displaces another, *naturally* many aspects of the culture of the
>"losing" language will persist afterwards.>>

>It's not a criticism of "linguistic archaeology" or "paleolinguistics".  It's
>simply that material remains speak for themselves.  If you have "mixed
>cultures", one can make any linguistic conclusions one feels appropriate.
>That doesn't change the hard evidence and the fact that it may not endorse
>any particular conclusion about the languages being spoken.

All I really look for is that it be *consist ant* with the model that is
developed using a combination of evidence from many sources.  It need not,
*on* *its* *own*, uniquely support any particular model.

><<In the Pacific islands, the replacement of many of the Polynesian languages
>by various European Creoles was *not* accompanied by a
>complete"europeanization" of these islands.  Quite the contrary.  Even to
>this day the peoples of these islands still retain many of the cultural
>practices from before, and continue to make many of the same cultural
>artifacts (e.g. stone heads).  A future archeologist is likely to argue that
>"there is a continuity in many aspects of the Pacific island material culture
>...".>>

>And that is exactly the case.  If you are saying that material culture has
>remained, than what would you expect him to report?  ANYTHING else would be
>INCORRECT.

I am not expecting them to report anything else.  What I was reacting to
was, perhaps, not what you were actually saying.  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.

>The point you've made is that the material culture can sometimes be
>independent of language change - which is exactly what the problem is in
>expecting that archaeological evidence can be used to support  e.g., the
>presence or absence of Greek being spoken in parts or all of Greece in
>prehistoric times.  Which is why I wrote ALTHOUGH THIS MIGRATION (from

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

--------------
May the peace of God be with you.         sarima at ix.netcom.com

Message-Id: <4.1.19991020082121.00980b40 at popd.netcruiser>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 08:45:51 -0700
Subject: Fwd: Re: GREEK PREHISTORY AND LANGUAGE

[ moderator snip ]

>All I really look for is that it be *consistant* with the model that is
>developed using a combination of evidence from many sources.  It need not,
>*on* *its* *own*, uniquely support any particular model.

To follow up on this matter in more detail:

What we see in Polynesia and Roman Gaul is a mixture of continuity and
change.  And the change is often such that it, itself, involves admixture
of native and imported elements.

To take the case of Roman Gaul, as more apropos to the Early Helladic of
Greece, we see the following effects superimposed upon the continuity of
Gaulish culture:

1. Extensive destruction of older settlements
2. (Re-)Estblishment of settlements with a different site layout (generally
a hybrid of Italic and Gaulic town plans).
3. Application of Roman technology, and to some degree artistic styles, to
typically Gaulic artifacts, causing a subtle change in style in these
artifacts.

It is almost exactly this pattern we see in the EH II to EH III transition.

Note, I am far from convinced that this is the arrival of the Greeks: it
may as easily represent the arrival, or beginning of the arrival, or a
pre-Greek IE substratum.  The Greeks may not have arrived until the
two-wheeled war chariot showed up near the end of the MH (around 1600 BC).

Certainly if a late unity of Greek and Indo-Iranian is valid (the
Greek-Armenian-Indo-Iranian Sprachbund), then Greeks are almost certainly
to be associated with war chariots, as that seems to be a late innovation.

--------------
May the peace of God be with you.         sarima at ix.netcom.com