Pre-Greek substrate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term Pre-Greek substrate refers to an unknown language that is conjectured to have been spoken in prehistoric Greece before the settlement of Greek-speakers in the area. It is believed by some linguists that Greek took over a large number of words and proper names from such a language (its substrate), because a large proportion of the vocabulary of Greek does not have demonstrable Indo-European roots.
Contents |
[edit] Non-Indo-European words
Including the following:
- Terms of insult and prejorative vocabulary
- Maritime terms, words for the sea, shipping (eg thalassa)
- Words relating to Mediterranean agriculture, (eg olives)
- Words regarding rulers, given by the populace (eg Tyranos)
- Building technology (eg Kapital)
- Words relating to Non-Indo-European divinities (eg Athena)
To this list, others have added placenames, for example those placenames that include -ss- (eg Knossos, Parnassos), -inth- (eg Korinthos), or -tt- (eg Attica).
Various explanations have been put forward to explain these substrate features. All have weaknesses. Some of these explanations include.
[edit] Luwian substratum
A Luwian substratum has been proposed by Leslie Palmer, on the basis of -ss- placenames being widespread in Western Anatolia, and of the widespread Anatolian presence of "Grey Minyan Ware" formerly associated with the coming of the Greeks.
- Counter argument 1. - there is nothing to prevent the Grey Minyan incursions into Anatolia being of pre-Greek speaking Indo-Europeans. The Greek language shows close affinities to Armenian, and these Anatolian people may have been speakers of a proto-Armenian tongue.
- Counter argument 2. - It may be that the -ss- and -inth- presence in Luwian language placenames may be due to the substrate languages of this area, with both the Aegean and West Anatolian people speaking related languages (this is the view of James Mellaart).
[edit] Tyrrhenian substratum
Suggested on the basis of statements in Thucidides that Tyrrhenian was a former language of Athens and that Tyrhhenians were expelled to Lemnos, that the substrate language was related to Lemnian, and thus by association to Etruscan.
- Counter argument 1: There is nothing historically to suggest that Tyrrhenian was more widespread in the Aegean than the north east, and adjacent areas of Asia Minor.
- Counter argument 2: Nothing in the Greek Substrate terminology that seems similar to the reconstructed vocabularies for Etruscan.
[edit] Minoan substratum
The existance of a Minoan substratum is is the view of Arthur Evans who assumed widespread Minoan colonisation of the Aegean, policed by a Minoan thalassocracy.
- Counter argument 1: Theories of a Minoan "thalassocracy" have in modern times been dismissed as the product of a late Victorian fantasy of an earlier civilisation which like Britain "ruled the waves".
- Counter argument 2: Archaeologically, Cretian civilisation seems to have been a development of the island of Crete, having only indirect cultural impacts upon either the Cyclades or early Helladic cultures, which seem to have developed independently of Minoan Crete.
[edit] Pelasgian substratum
Suggests that there was an indigenous non-Indo-Eropean "Pelasgian" language in the Aegean area before the coming of the Indo-European Proto-Greeks.
- Counter argument 1: The Word Pelasgian has been used in a variety of ways, by both ancient and modern writers to mean different things.
- Counter argument 2: Ancient sources such as Herodotus suggest that Pelasgian was an early form of Greek (and thus would have been close to Proto-Greek).
[edit] Egyptian-Semitic substratum
Martin Bernal suggests, based on the arguments of his book "Black Athena" that the substratum languages for the pre-Greek language of the Aegean was a mixture of Egyptian and Semitic languages.
- Counter argument 1: Whilst modern scholars are taking greater account of the Egyptian and Semitic influence upon Greek civilisation, they reject Bernal's use of "mass comparisons" based upon random phonetic similarities.
- Counter argument 2: The lack of concrete evidence of a mass transfer of population from Egypt or the Levant before 2,000 BCE is absent, which puts a great burden of proof upon Bernal's thesis
