The Ethnicity of the Sea Peoples - RePub - Erasmus Universiteit ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Phrygian already bears testimony of the innovative middle forms in -toy or -toi, Phrygian may well be considered to side with Greek with respect to the loss of the mediopassive in -r- as well (yet another innovation which Greek and Phrygian share with Indo-Iranian). 170 Against the background of this considerable overlap in lexicon, phonological, and grammatical features between Greek and Thraco-Phrygian, then, I think it is not farfetched to assume that Greek came into being as a split from Thraco- Phrygian under the impetus of foreign tongue(s) introduced, as we have seen, by conquerors from Egypt, Phoenicia, and Crete in the transition from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I (c. 1600 BC) (see Fig. 10). time scale: PIE *b h rter- *b h rug- *d h - *g h lro- c. 1600 BC Linear B Iron Age phratr bratere phruges Briges tithmi edaes khlros glouros Fig. 10. Reconstruction of the split between Greek and Thraco- Phrygian on the basis of the development of the mediae aspiratae (after Haas 1966: 209). 171 In retrospect, it may be concluded that our investigation into the theories on the ethnogenesis of the Greeks has led us to a point of view which is very close to the one held by the majority of scholars and expressed by the contributors to the prestigious Cambridge Ancient History. 170 Note that the supposed medio-passive forms addaketor and abberetor turn up instead of active addaket in variants of the protasis of the damnation formula, which usually runs as follows: ios ni semoun tou knoumanei kakoun addaket “whoever will bring any damage to this grave”, see Diakonoff & Neroznak 1985: 31; contra Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 341-3; 345. For the middle forms in -toy or -toi, see Woudhuizen 1993a: 5-6. It should be stressed in this connection, however, that passive forms in -r- have been preserved in Armenian as well, see Haas 1966: 247. 171 I am indebted to Wim van Binsbergen for drawing this diagram. teke 66 Thus, it appears that Caskey is essentially right in his assumption that in the transitional periods from Early Helladic II to Early Helladic III (c. 2300 BC) and from Early Helladic III to Middle Helladic (c. 2000 BC), a new people arrived in Greece which spoke an Indo-European language which was later to become Greek. And Stubbings is essentially right in his assumption that in the transitional period from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I (c. 1600 BC) Greece was conquered by foreign invaders from Egypt and Palestine who, however, were not numerous enough to plant their language(s) on the at that time indigenous population. The only ingredients which we have added is that, in accordance with Best’s view, the bearers of the Minyan culture were Thracian and Phrygian tribes, and that Greek is a split from Thraco-Phrygian taking place in southern and central Greece under the influence of foreign tongue(s) introduced by the conquering warrior caste of expert charioteers who take over control of these areas c. 1600 BC. I can only hope that these new ingredients have been presented in such a manner that they will become as influential as the old ones. Additional note: Remaining models In the above, I have not treated all models, only the historically viable ones. Remaining models for the ethnogenesis of the Greeks are: (1) during the Neolithic, c. 6000 BC (Renfrew); 172 (2) at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, c. 3200 BC (Coleman); 173 (3) at the end of the Late Bronze Age, c. 1200 BC (Grumach, Hood). 174 Of these models, the Neolithic option has become “en vogue” lately, being further propagated by Robert Drews in his collection of papers by various scholars entitled Greater Anatolia. 175 In theory, however, a connection between the spread of Neolithic agricultural economy with that of the Indo-European languages as defended by Colin Renfrew would lead us to assume a gradual diffusion of 172 Renfrew 1987. 173 Coleman 2000. 174 Grumach 1969; Hood 1974. 175 Drews 2001.
linguistic features from an hypothetical centre, Anatolia in Renfrew’s view, to the outlying districts (= wave of advance). Hence, it cannot explain the intrusion of a more developed Indo-European layer as represented by Phrygian and Greek in between conservative IE Anatolian on the one hand and an as yet undivided Italo-Celtic in eastern and central Europe on the other hand: 176 like the presence of an Hungarian speaking “island” in a Slavic speaking “sea”, this distribution pattern indicates disruption by immigrants from elsewhere than the hypothetical centre Anatolia – the more so because it is repeated to the east, with innovative Indo-Iranian in between conservative IE Anatolian on the one hand and Tocharian on the other hand. Moreover, the more developed features of Phrygian and Greek, which these have in common with Sanskrit, like the relative *yo-, the augment in the indicative of the past tense, and the loss of medio-passive -r-, or with Iranian, like the loss of initial s, are unlikely to have been crystalized already as early as the beginning of the Early Bronze Age. My reconstruction of the relatively late split between Phrygian and Greek on the one hand and Indo-Iranian on the other would be as follows: progressive use of the horse domesticated horse attested in mainland Greece developments in the innovative group of Indo-European languages augment relative *yoloss of mediopassive -rloss of initial s split of Indo-Iranian from Phrygo-Greek chariot satem Indo-Iranian only Table 3. Developments in the innovative group of Indo-European languages related to the progressive use of the horse To this comes that the hiatus between the Neolithic 176 For the reflex of PIE *k w i- or *k w o- in Celtic, cf. the Celtiberian indefinite kuekue- “whosoever” in kuekuetikui (D sg. in -i) “to whomsoever it may concern” as attested for the so-called re bronze, see Meid 1996: 30-1; Meid 2000: 12; for the reflex of PIE *swe- in Celtic, cf. the Gallic reflexive pronoun of the 3rd person sue- “self-”, see Meid 1996: 31, and the possibly related Celtiberian forms ue and ue, see Meid 1993, Glossar s.v. Note, however, that the significance of the relative *yo- for the innovative group of Indo-European languages is somewhat undermined by the fact that its reflex is also attested for conservative (also mediopassive -r and centum, see Meid 1993: 59 and 44, respectively) Celtiberian, see Meid 1993: 96. 67 and Early Bronze Age in Greece would seriously hamper the transmission of the pre-Greek place names in -ss- and -nth-, no inhabitants being left to execute this transmission. Finally, arrival of the Greeks at the end of the Bronze Age is definitely ruled out by the decipherment of Linear B as an old form of Greek.
Page 1:
The Ethnicity of the Sea Peoples 1
Page 4 and 5:
Promotiecommissie Promotor: Prof.dr
Page 7:
CONTENTS Preface ..................
Page 10 and 11:
profited from the collaboration wit
Page 12 and 13:
Frontispiece. Rowers depicted on a
Page 15 and 16: In a work which deals with the ethn
Page 17 and 18: similar vein, to accuse Georges Dum
Page 19: upon a pre-existing local populatio
Page 22 and 23: certainty about the 8th century BC
Page 24 and 25: with the Heraklids Kresphontes and
Page 26 and 27: after the end of the Bronze Age. 43
Page 28 and 29: Miletos may be due to an historical
Page 30 and 31: It lies at hand to correlate the fa
Page 32 and 33: more, he rearranged the western pro
Page 35 and 36: 4. AN HISTORIOGRAPHIC OUTLINE In th
Page 37 and 38: The view of Maspero that the Sea Pe
Page 39 and 40: ples as mere pirates goes Helck’s
Page 41 and 42: site or manoeuvring in mountainous
Page 43 and 44: The contemporary sources with a bea
Page 45 and 46: Enkomi cylinder seal (Inv. no. 19.1
Page 47 and 48: Tablet 1687 from Enkomi Side A (15)
Page 49 and 50: RS 20.238 ù dú-nu-na-ta dan-níš
Page 51 and 52: Libyans (year 5) as well as success
Page 53 and 54: Fig. 5. Land battle scene of Medine
Page 55 and 56: he said to me: “To be sure, they
Page 57 and 58: 6. LUKKA AND THE LUKKA LANDS Since
Page 59 and 60: 7. ETHNOGENESIS OF THE GREEKS The d
Page 61 and 62: the archaeological record by the Ma
Page 63 and 64: adopting the then modern Indo-Aryan
Page 65: Evidently, the Hyksos were a highly
Page 70 and 71: have been Crete, since in the text
Page 72 and 73: war 199 - a suggestion further emph
Page 74 and 75: give and take a few dialectal reshu
Page 77 and 78: In Homeros there are three indicati
Page 79 and 80: Models The problem of Etruscan orig
Page 81 and 82: 7th century BC, is, considering the
Page 83 and 84: (proto-)Villanovan is attested (cf.
Page 85 and 86: sumed that the Etruscans have borro
Page 87: grave of North Pontic steppe type,
Page 90 and 91: Trojans, nor will they change their
Page 92 and 93: “Venel Atelinas has given this to
Page 94 and 95: as follows: 370 1. M(arce) Vnata
Page 96 and 97: Fig. 17. Settlement of the Sea Peop
Page 98 and 99: salian Gyrtone. 406 On the basis of
Page 100 and 101: of their foundation of Kume, the Ai
Page 102 and 103: Asherah, Ugaritic y-, -m)!”. 453
Page 104 and 105: inhabitants of the Mesara plain at
Page 106 and 107: sociated from that of Mls, a predec
Page 108 and 109: found here. 513 It is interesting t
Page 110 and 111: Fig. 21. Distribution of Trojan gre
Page 112 and 113: The story continues with the Sherde
Page 114 and 115: On the basis of the combined eviden
Page 116 and 117:
our identification of the Weshesh w
Page 118 and 119:
(Histories I, 57) reports, adopted
Page 120 and 121:
lesh are geographically based, bein
Page 123 and 124:
APPENDIX I: ON THE DECIPHERMENT OF
Page 125 and 126:
36. 5 005 191 TIWATA, [ti] PF 2 (35
Page 127 and 128:
Evans CHIC CL value attestation 64.
Page 129 and 130:
identical to Egyptian bi’ty “ki
Page 131 and 132:
# 258 # 271 # 296 # 309 1 2 3 1. 'y
Page 133:
# 314 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. 'tá-PÁRA
Page 136 and 137:
52. “-ship” -®i- -c-, -- (pro)
Page 138 and 139:
59. 3rd pers. pl. pres./fut. -nt -n
Page 140 and 141:
pattern is formed by the G pl. in -
Page 142 and 143:
LUWIAN ROMAN INDIC GERMANIC F1 Tark
Page 144 and 145:
linguistic point of view, however,
Page 146 and 147:
meat) or as a sacred animal per se:
Page 148 and 149:
Behn, Friedrich, 1924, Hausurnen. B
Page 150 and 151:
tury B.C’. Orientalia 56. Pp. 1-3
Page 152 and 153:
Gardiner, Alan H., 1947, Ancient Eg
Page 154 and 155:
Ägäis und die Levante während de
Page 156 and 157:
terranean in the mid second millenn
Page 158 and 159:
occidentale. Studia Mediterranea 8.
Page 160 and 161:
Sommer, Ferdinand, 1932, Die A®®i
Page 162 and 163:
--- , 2004b, Woudhuizen, Fred C., S
Page 164 and 165:
hele andere etnische groep rekenen.
Page 167:
CURRICULUM VITAE VAN FREDERIK CHRIS
show all

The Ethnicity of the Sea Peoples - RePub - Erasmus Universiteit ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?