A brief summary of IE migrations

[Andrew]

In this thread I would like to present the migration models of the IE (Indoeuropeans)after 3000 BC and on ...I'm not going to search the original homeplace of the proto-IEans (proto-IndoEuropeans), although I would like to present the 3 main hypothesis:

1) Kurgan hypothesis of Marija Gimbutas: She identifies the PIE with the Kurgans of the pontian Stepps.
2) Balkan hypothesis of D'Iakonov : He puts the original PIE homeland in the Balkans
3) Anatolian hypothesis: The original thought of Sir Colin Renfrew was that the original homeland of the PIE was Anatolia and they came to Europe with the first neolithic agriculturs around 6500 BC ...It is interesting note that lately Renfrew changed his opinion and now sostains the "Balkanian" hypothesis of D'Iakonov.

So that leaves us basicaly with 2 hypothesis : "Balkanian" and "Pontic Stepp"

It is not a problem which one we should choose since both models put the Graeco-Aryan group in the South-East Globular Amphora culture , in the Romanian-Ukranian borders around 3000 BC . So I'm taking that point as a start point.

Some things that we must clarify before making our migration model are:

1) Linguistics lately indicate that the separation of Graeco-Aryan group happened around 2800 BC
2) Near the Graeco-Aryan group we must put the proto-Anatolian group and the proto-Phrygian group ..since all this groups seem to be related somehow.
3) The Baden culture in the Austrohungarian plains seem to be the proto-Celtic-Italic-Illyrian group.
4) The corded ware culture must be related to the proto-Germanic group , a group that stemmed from a common proto-GBS (Germano-Baltic-Slavic).
5) The anatolian migration from the Balkans to Asia Minor is dated around 2300 BC
6) In Greece we have 3 IE waves dating 2100 BC , 1900 BC , 1600 BC
- The 2100 BC seem to be the "Luwian" invasion of the Anatolians to Greece almost contemporarely with their migration in Anatolia.

Interestingly this proto-Anatolian invasion to Greece from Thrace can correspond to the myth of the "Anatolian" (sometimes Phrygian some times Lydian in mythology) Pelops and his brothers and sisters : Pelops was located in Peloponnesus , his sister Niobe is located in Central Greece (Thebe) and his brother Broùsis interestingly has the other name of Bottia (Brousìs) in the central Macedonian Plain where the Bottians lived and where the river Loudias is located (ancient name Lydias ...!!! note the similarity with the word Lydia !!).

-The 1900 BC seem to be the arrival of the Greeks in South Albania (Maliq)
- and 1600 BC must be their diffusion in Southern Greece and the formation of the Mycenaean culture.
7) Bottians are traditionaly seeing as Cretan colonists from Minoic Crete in the central Macedonian Plain (Strabo mentiones that and we know that they "loaned" the double axe symbol to the Phrygians when the last invaded the Balkans later on 1200 BC. Now the interesting part is tha tmost scholars now believe tha tthe "Double Axe" was original an "Anatolian" symbol with older origins from North Europe (Corded Ware). So the Bottians can be remnants of the "Luwian"/Anatolian invasions of the Greek soil back in 2100 BC. Near them we have Herodotus' "Pelasgic" Krestonians ...that had a special language different of the surrounding Thracians and Paeonians.

So what I propose here is to see Bottians , Krestonians and the "mysterius" Almopians and Eordians as "Luwian" / "Anatolians" that moved South-West instead of South-East
8) The "motoring force" of the migrations are the Satem expansions in the Balkans (Thracians , Moesians and Dacians ...and possibly minor groups like Paeonians , Dardanians , Mysians , Bithineans (these last two are considered thracian tribes that have migrated in Asia Minor pushing the anatolians further south-East).
9) The Phrygians (with the exception of the Aryans or Indo-Iranians) were the ones that had to move most ..since originaly they were near Anatolians and Graeco-Aryans in the Balkans , later had to move north and formed the Lausitz (Lusatian) Culture in the Germano-Polish bourders around 1300 BC , later descended and settled from Albania and Macedonia to Thrace and Asia Minor and finaly they were pushed permanently to Asia Minor and Herodotus and Strabo informs us that the Armenians were their Colonists. So by puting the Phrygian language near the Anatolian and Graeco-Aryan we explain the similarities of it's "doughter" Armenian with the Greek , Aryan and anatolian languages.At this point it's fair to say that the latest linguistic opinions want the Phrygian language being a Centum one and the Armenian a Satem not related to the Phrygian , but deriving from the Aryan group when that was passing from the Black Sea , over the Caucasus and over the Caspian Sea.

10) The Aryan group originaly Centum and very akine to the proto-Greek one finaly -due to it's isolation and surrounding by the Satem speakers- got Satemized and gave the Satem branches Iranian and Sanscrit.

After considering all that I'm putting the maps with the migrating models.











[url=http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=177&i=iv1800ho5.jpg][IMG]http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/2317/iv1800ho5.f9fad2427e





[url=http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=165&i=vi1000lz3.jpg][IMG]

[chicagogeorge]

[Andrew]

Thanks for the Info ChicagoGeorge !!!

In fact , on the Armenians being descendants of the Phrygians or not , was troubling me also ...

About the arival of the proto-Greeks in Greeks ..I found recently an interesting book "The coming of the Greeks" by Robert Drews were ha investigates criticaly the 3 most probable dates of the "coming of the Greeks" (1994) 2100 , 1900 and 1600 BC . Some pages of the book are in the web:

http://books.google.com/books?id=fcV...kNdQR00vqtyc2g

This 3 dates have cultural "breaks" tha fit to indoeuropean invasions:

He attributes the 2100 BC invasion in the "Luwians"/Anatolians
..the 1900 BC (I personaly consider it) the Arrival of the Greeks in Albania-Northern Epeirus-North West Macedonia.
...and 1600 BC he as the Greek settlement in south Greece.

[Andrew]

BTW if you can give me a hand ...I would like to make it a good and detailed thread on the migrations occured in the Balkans and Asia Minor in the 3000-1000 BC period !

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Thanks for the Info ChicagoGeorge !!!

In fact , on the Armenians being descendants of the Phrygians or not , was troubling me also ...

About the arival of the proto-Greeks in Greeks ..I found recently an interesting book "The coming of the Greeks" by Robert Drews were ha investigates criticaly the 3 most probable dates of the "coming of the Greeks" (1994) 2100 , 1900 and 1600 BC . Some pages of the book are in the web:

http://books.google.com/books?id=fcV...kNdQR00vqtyc2g

This 3 dates have cultural "breaks" tha fit to indoeuropean invasions:

He attributes the 2100 invasion in the "Luwians"/Anatolians
..the 1900 in the Arrival of the Greeks in Albania-Northrn Epeirus-North West Macedonia.
...and the 1600 as their settlement in south Greece.

Thank you Andrew. This is a very interesting subject for me and I have done some research in. As for Robert Drews book, I used to have it If I recall correctly didn't he say that the Greeks who arrived in south Greece were basically not large bands, but smaller chariot riding warriors?

I also don't recall Drews mentioning south Albania as their starting point?

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

Thank you Andrew. This is a very interesting subject for me and I have done some research in. As for Robert Drews book, I used to have it If I recall correctly didn't he say that the Greeks who arrived in south Greece were basically not large bands, but smaller chariot riding warriors?

I also don't recall Drews mentioning south Albania as their starting point?

first of all I have to say that I haven't read ALL the book ..I found it in googlebooks and read the pages that they permite me ..BTW I found out that the book exists also in Greek Edition ..so I will buy it first thing in August in greece ...

If you read it I need your opinion ..I found it very interesting with good critical aproach on the "coming" dates...does it worth it's money ??

Yes you're wright ..the theory is about a minority of warriors who became masters on the pre-Greeks and transfered their language to them ,but also recieved linguistic influence by them.

About the South Albania stuff ..I haven't found it in Drews , but first I found it in Hammond and from then in all the websites takling about the importance of Maliq IIIb (help me if I'm wrong with the IIIb) in the coming of the Greeks.

Strangely the proto-Greeks have avoided the Vardar Valley (probably because the pass between Sar Planina and Crna Gora was well defended by Earlier populations (Thracians , Paeonians , anatolians , pre-IE ????) ..so the proto-Greeks from Kosovo had to deviate to albania and from there passed later to Greece. Interestingly Hammond talks about the Ionian Sea and the Ionian Gulf in Albania as a possible first station of the Ionians (first name Iaones ..typical Epeirotan).

BTW another thing that I found interesting is the fact that Drews says that Aeolic and doric were very akine in 1200 BC and the Ionian dialect probably first appeared in 1200 BC .

What I'm asking is this : If there was a Doric-Aeolic branch that already stemmed from proto-Greek in a different branch of proto-Mycenaean could that proto-Doric-Aeolic branch be the Macedonian dialect ..or could it be that the Macedonian dialect stemmed from this PDA before it's separation in doric and Aeolic.
Both of these possibilities explain the fact that the Macedonian dialect is "between" NW and Aeolic ,both by ancient writers (Herodotus consideres it Doric Hellanicus and Hesiod Aeolic) and by modern (Hoffman and Hammond 1st hypothesis was Aeolic ..then Hammond's 2nd and Mason's hypothesi talk about NW Greek).....What do you think ??

[Andrew]

And I repeat everything you wanna put (or everybody else) about the ancient IE migrations is well accepted ....if each one of us that has examined this matter puts his theory then we can talk about comparisons and stuff like that ..and make some safe conclusions.

BTW What is your opinion about the connection between the Phrygians and the Lausitz culture up north ?

[BigBlackBeast]

Originally Posted by Andrew

first of all I have to say that I haven't read ALL the book ..I found it in googlebooks and read the pages that they permite me ..BTW I found out that the book exists also in Greek Edition ..so I will buy it first thing in August in greece ...

Yes you're wright ..the theory is about a minority of warriors who became masters on the pre-Greeks and transfered their language to them ,but also recieved linguistic influence by them.

About the South Albania stuff ..I haven't found it in Drews , but first I found it in Hammond and from then in all the websites takling about the importance of Maliq IIIb (help me if I'm wrong with the IIIb) in the coming of the Greeks.

Strangely the proto-Greeks have avoided the Vardar Valley (probably because the pass between Sar Planina and Crna Gora was well defended by Earlier populations (Thracians , Paeonians , anatolians , pre-IE ????) ..so the proto-Greeks from Kosovo had to deviate to albania and from there passed later to Greece. Interestingly Hammond talks about the Ionian Sea and the Ionian Gulf in Albania as a possible first station of the Ionians (first name Iaones ..typical Epeirotan).

BTW another thing that I found interesting is the fact that Drews says that Aeolic and doric were very akine in 1200 BC and the Ionian dialect probably first appeared in 1200 BC .

What I'm asking is this : If there was a Doric-Aeolic branch that already stemmed from proto-Greek in a different branch of proto-Mycenaean could that proto-Doric-Aeolic branch be the Macedonian dialect ..or could it be that the Macedonian dialect stemmed from this PDA before it's separation in doric and Aeolic.
Both of these possibilities explain the fact that the Macedonian dialect is "between" NW and Aeolic ,both by ancient writers (Herodotus consideres it Doric Hellanicus and Hesiod Aeolic) and by modern (Hoffman and Hammond 1st hypothesis was Aeolic ..then Hammond's 2nd and Mason's hypothesi talk about NW Greek).....What do you think ??

If memory serves me Drewes argues, very implausibly in my opinion, that the first Greeks landed, with their chariots and horses, in Thessaly having arrived from across the Aegean. It was from here that they spread (being a distinct military minority) to lord it over the locals and to impose their language ... Not very convincing really.

As for Macedonian lying between NW Greek and Aeolic ... but probably closer to the former ... I find your hypotheses very interesting even though it is based on observations of Drewes whose views I don't fully trust yet I am not competent enough to debunk .

I always saw the Pierian region as a sort of extension - from the point of view of the dialectal map of Greece - of the situation that came to exist in areas of the 'same longitude' such as Thessaly and Boiotia where an earlier Aeolic population received NW/Doric invaders with a resultant transformation of their dialect into a sort of hybrid of the two. It always struck me that the Magnetes - the 'cousins - or rather siblings - of the Macedonians, according to Hecataeus - were very definitely Aeolian speakers in antiquity while the Makedones do not appear to have been completely so.

One 'story-line' that I have often entertained is this ... I see the Aeolian-speaking Magnetes inhabiting Pieria in its entirety at some early stage with the Makedones (or the group that would in part give birth to the Makedones) inhabiting the regions to their west. The Thracian inroads (of the 'Pieres') into the plain of Pieria pushed the main bulk of the Magnetes southwards into their historic home yet probably failed to fully dislodge remnant Magnetes from the Pierian mountains. These remnants later merged with the incoming Makedones - essentially speakers of western Greek- so as to account for the apparent Aeolisms within their dialect (much more than from any later Thessalian linguistic influence).

Just a theory ...

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by BigBlackBeast

If memory serves me Drewes argues, very implausibly in my opinion, that the first Greeks landed, with their chariots and horses, in Thessaly having arrived from across the Aegean. It was from here that they spread (being a distinct military minority) to lord it over the locals and to impose their language ... Not very convincing really.

As for Macedonian lying between NW Greek and Aeolic ... but probably closer to the former ... I find your hypotheses very interesting even though it is based on observations of Drewes whose views I don't fully trust yet I am not competent enough to debunk .

I always saw the Pierian region as a sort of extension - from the point of view of the dialectal map of Greece - of the situation that came to exist in areas of the 'same longitude' such as Thessaly and Boiotia where an earlier Aeolic population received NW/Doric invaders with a resultant transformation of their dialect into a sort of hybrid of the two. It always struck me that the Magnetes - the 'cousins - or rather siblings - of the Macedonians, according to Hecataeus - were very definitely Aeolian speakers in antiquity while the Makedones do not appear to have been completely so.

One 'story-line' that I have often entertained is this ... I see the Aeolian-speaking Magnetes inhabiting Pieria in its entirety at some early stage with the Makedones (or the group that would in part give birth to the Makedones) inhabiting the regions to their west. The Thracian inroads (of the 'Pieres') into the plain of Pieria pushed the main bulk of the Magnetes southwards into their historic home yet probably failed to fully dislodge remnant Magnetes from the Pierian mountains. These remnants later merged with the incoming Makedones - essentially speakers of western Greek- so as to account for the apparent Aeolisms within their dialect (much more than from any later Thessalian linguistic influence).

Just a theory ...

Hallo BBB !!!

So in your "hamble" opinion Drews in a good book or not ??? I only found out about him 2 days ago and only red few pages in the web ...

I agree with your theory about Magnets and Macedonians inhabiting Pieria and that the first were driven away by the incoming Thracian "Pieres". It's almost certain that the names of Pieria (Πῖαρ = top milk , well chosen) and Emathia (ημαθόεν = sandy) have been given probably from the Magnets since Macedonians said Amathis.

Now in an attempt to "brigde" the two "brothers" as Hesiod calls them : the Aeolophon Magnets and the Western Greek speakers Macedonians I propose this theory.

1) From proto-Greek in south Albania -Epeirus - Western Macedonia first stemmed the proto-Mycenaean and it was carried southward.
2) From the remaining proto-Greek bulk the proto-Ionians had settled in the albanian coasts as Iaones ("ω" is a later letter that substituted the forms vocal-o , o-vocal ,vocal-u , u-vocal examples : φάος > φως , θέα ορώ > θεωρώ , Macedonian "σαυτωρία" and Ionic "σωτηρία" , Ιάονες>Ίωνες ,that's why in earlier times Ionia/Ionian was named "Ias"). By developing their well-known nautical skills the Ionians named the Sea Ionian and their gulf "Ionian" they "Ionian Gulf of thq later dorian colony Epidamnos".
3) The remaing "continental" part of the proto-greek bulk evolved in what I like to say proto-continental or common doric-Aeolic or more proper common North Western-Aeolic ....let's say it proto-continental Greek.

Here is some interesting page about the similarities of Doric and Aeolic by the book "A new companion to Homer" by Ian Morris & Barry Powel :




4) From that proto-continental stemmed the Macedonian-Magnesian-Boetian group. They all lived nearby:
-Macedonians Maketa/Makeda (Make da = heigh land, later Orestis) the Boetians in mound Boion and the Magnets in Pieria and Emathia and they named these two regions.
5) In the next step the Boetians moved to Thessaly bringing with them their proto-"continental" Greek which seems "hybrid" West-Aeolian later .It's not realy "hybrid" it's just that it stemmed fro mthe proto-continental before the last's division in North-Western and Aeolic ..that's why it maintained the "hybrid" nature.
6) Next step is the separation of proto-"continental" bulk in Eperus and Albania in north-Western Greek and Aeolian Greek. The NW Greeks remained in situ ,but the Aeolian moved to Thessaly and drove away the Boetians southward to historical Boetia ...bringind with them their "hybrid" dialect.
7) Now in the North ..The Magnets and the Macedonians at that time spoke the common proto-Continental. The Thracians drove away the Magnets to Thessaly and there by straight contact with the Aeolians their language was specialized in Aeolian (that is lost great part of it's western heritage).
8) The Macedonians in the Pierian mountains could comunicate only with the Western speaking Greeks of elymia , Orestis , Tymphaea etc so their proto-continental was "specialized" in a more "Western" form.
9) By all that continental Greek invasions to south Greece where we already have Anatolians ..the Anatolians had to move the great part of their Army to their northern borders to countermove the Greek-Invasions.

This gave the Ionians the oportunity to move by the Ionian Sea from the Albanian coast and the Eptanesa (we have Ionian graves in Leukada) and reach Western Peloponnesus (Achaia and Pylos , two regions with great Ionian traditions as Herodotus says in I,145 , homer mentiones the Iason Argos meaning "Ionian Peloponnese" and the Ionian Alcmeonids and Peisistratids in Athens of "Nestorid" (Pylean) descent. By there the Ionians expanded in the Coastal zones of the Peloponnese (Korinth , Argolid) and from there they moved north to Attica , Euboea and the Islands of the Saronic Gulf)

10)The last to move were the Dorians who discent from the NW bulk and they made their famous invasion to south Greece.


By that scheme I see the "hybrid" Aeolo-Western natures of the Macedonian and the Boetian dialects as descending from that common proto-"continental" , from which I think that also the Magnets came from , but due to their contacts with the later Aeolians in Thessaly ..they "specialized" in Aeolophons as the Macedonians by isolation and contact only with Western Greeks ..specialized in "Western Greek speakers" ..maintaining some parts of their Aeolic heritage of the proto-"continental" (common Doric-Aeolic).

11) As I said the first group that was separated by the common proto-Greek bulk was the proto-Mycenaean ...which had the most contacts with the IE anatolian groups of south Greece. That's why the Mycenaeans changed their sounds β,γ,δ to φ,χ,θ . Later by their high culture they transfered the sound changing to the Boetians , Ionians and Aeolians ,but couldn't reach the "Upper Greeks" ... NW Greeks.The same thing happened much later when the Atheneans due to their heigh culture had diffused their "Attic" dialect to all over Greece.

So we have these charatteristics:

1) Macedonians maintained their β,γ,δ
2) North Western Greeks also , but the ones who descended recieved "Mycenaean" influence ...but some charatteristics remained:
-i- The Locrians of Delphi used "b" instead of "p" , example: βικρός instead of πικρός.
-ii- The Dorian word for "speach" is βώνημα instead of φώνημα.
-iii- even the Atheneans maintained some proto-Greek heritage since Aristophanes in his Ornithes names the bird with red-head "κεβλήπυρις" just like the macedonian word for head "κεβαλή/κέβλη" instead of "Southern" "κεφαλή".

[Andrew]

Here is a "dendrogram" that summarizes what Isaid above:


[url=http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=183&i=greekdialectdendrogramol6.png][IMG]http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/3412/greekdialectdendrogramol6.d3612b2e2f.jpg