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

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.