The Journal of INDO-EUROPEAN STUDIES PEARSON, ROGER Tn Memaru, Edger Plo 1 ALLEN, N. J. ‘Anos and Hamuman: Osu dog in th light of te ‘Mahabhrata 3 PIERCE, MARC ‘Contains on Sylale Structure in Early Gorman 7 Markey, Tom ‘Of ged mecha and mph yong thera Gefey Chaucer, ‘The Book ofthe Ducheste (454) al KRASUKHIN, KONSTANTIN G. Tie IndoBuropean Root *dhcugh ls Moplalog, Meaning, iymalgy in Comparison with Siar Forms). 3 KATONA, AL. ‘Proto Gos an he Kage hey ss ‘COLEMAN, JOHN E. ‘An Archatlgial Saari forthe "Coming of the Gras". 9200 B.C onan 10 FLEMING, HAROLD C. Gatton in Eastern Armenian, 185 NIKOLOVA, LOLITA, ‘Th Balkan Prototndo Europeans in th Fourth and Tid Milne BC. penne 1ST MILLER, DEAN A. Other Kinds of He: The Coand Knight and Inteligence Embattled 221 ‘OWENS, Ganern! PreHelloic Language(s) of Cite Debate and Dies oe 287 INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTORS. 255 Volume 28, Numbers e2 Spring/Summer 2000,6 Konstantin G.Krasin oe igntichn ie Yd Wes, 1968 Zam sroetachen Presenl: Pann: Fes. ‘pertiague Mouton 918 "Hab pci retin pt, Wen Siena TSS eglchnde Croat dhe ac, Keesha, Bd "HPL Te Ltn impersonal pase: Ansan di odin 68 Pan Gi Ta tet Rom Pater ID Idan apbs Worbach Ber: Pace eer Te da ato Bair The oho pti a a pe TS Zur alchen Pa. IFOB2AS48 sere Step a Se pg te "Sneddon SE ante er i Sgn 195s Ale rf we ide 50512 Waies 10" edge Gamat, BI Gacic digeeichen Vn Helchrg Ca Wine ‘hear of Inde Burn Sie Proto-Greeks and the KurganTheory ALL Katona Abe Un problems of TE prchiwory. His interpretation is clse to the Rigen theory ot Mars Cintas Ble method is {sterdinciplinar, combining Mitory an tehaclog sth eu ta pbs nwngh on te se ‘sc eared aig neu ors he aren Theory ‘Sepuaon ha recent pulrsons apd makes sme ofa inkeScmee he wo approaches In 1991-J. Makkay! published an excellent survey of the Indo-Europeans, not only from the archaeological but also from a linguisde point of view? Alinough the subject of the book is the Indo-European expansion as a whole, a good portion of te devoted to Greck prehistory and tothe arval of populations later to be called Greeks, known commonly as Proto-Greeks. Not only one of the longest chapters? deals with this “coming” but also many other parts of the book, The ‘see kin Ear vi Hon fh lof dope Sir haktay 191A review ace of tht book ie pes he journal “Choo (ens, Hse xb ead in shone for ao Engh (bata vt "ony eco Malay 199i ave nome of wren ‘Sy aur Bly in Ate Arsenic Adee Sete Moonen 46 ln eng Gs xcept a gs ‘apap The autor nt he of Sebel 0S 11 ut et ‘ot den tbe conlson that 8 ate proc a Rung ian. hi ‘Sov eth Raa They and po 0 gn a ey Rega Sty at oor c+ more rev edton providing» beer lume 28, Numer 2 Spring/ Se 2000 a eee eaeauthor is, however, curiously silat about M. B, akellarion ‘whom he mentions just once without any coramentary* The [bliogeaphy® does riot ven contain Sakellarow' fundamental book Lat Prot Gvec”(Sakelarion 1980). This surprising for three reasons. Fat beaute 8 adoptea smile interdicplnary ‘method in combining archaeology and bistory with inguisies, {method warmly to be weleomed in my opinion, although mot too popular and rather infrequent ithe respecave sienic Feldh® Secondly, because many of the author's wes are ‘ential with or very near to thos of Sakellaroa, and tidy, because Mablay is decidedly agsina dhe "Kngan Theory" | the must reject Sakllarioa’s ews But on the pages were he Should do 80", he alludes only to “some scent” without Bing names, although mot overlooking the names of those who share hisvews* : T think tha this perhaps the only weak poipt of M's oxervis ver instructive book oT woul ke fo conte to the question after having ead some of Sakllarion's works snd having met him personaly, ith some information sbout his acti in this field. The Greek scholar who, lke for example, W.'P! Lehmann? is favourably dhposed towards Marie Pub 1991: 29794. mame ge for he erence in aay footnote in Maiay 1991: 276(119). Nor do I ind Sakelaio’s cro books tong the umerus sewed ay 8G Seton tle 59), ‘Sg A Tuer (hay 1001 26 286300) ex fourth apie may be det Mally o0 2100 depicts pone aba ot fe ee ‘Grete thug jecing the art Theol) ae een oe ion man sen ee iy ome lange (ks combate on p. 1, td 90 pp 2384, See ao fn, $2138 apt tw ao uptight iy 092 ghera much tote bogey {pp 2550) han Maka 100 Cie pages a hough nose, Nees «for many fae teterenes ae esta he tons): One ge howe ‘he tne ipresion that he ars double language sds Sse tc oF ne nt fot" unges a ante ne these he er Wiccan ane i) ble Baden onary {No 108, under the beading “The Curent Thaw of Ine aropean ‘Stde”Aniportan addendum fhe pbiaon af LN Datos ce (Gated frm Sth Apel 1698) write to Lehaunn (pp at tee ‘Bonerap dea at he Rizzan Thay wk farsarce and apres Thejoura of aden Sts Proto be and he Kurgon Thay a Gimbutas and Ker Kurgan Theory, thinks that there are clear signs of the presence of both Kurgans and the continuity of popblations moving downward through the Balkans and later {nto Greece well, He has published a very important article in the Festschrift for G. E. Mylonas.® The article reports on 4 SJellowish powder” found in a cup in a Mycenaean tomb, The powder wa analyzed in a laboratory and identified as yellow Shee. This and the other gravegoods correspond to Kurgan Dbarial customs! and their importance les in de fact that this is the frst time thata very clea sign of such customs have been noted in Greece, having been in use during the MHC II/LH T Period, between about 1650 and 1500 B.C? Tn another article published a few years earlier! Sakellario deals with ochre and traces of animal ies ae sgn ‘of external origin that are innovations in Greece,* withthe Importance ofan existing frontier or Kultrtront® — fromthe Context i follows dat he reckons with this in Greece — and ‘with » complex of archaeological and mythologial innovations (including, among others, the name Danaos, coming from the IE root *daw}, which he localizes during the wanstion from EH to MH (2000 B.C), He farther finds that the arial of the bearers of ProtoGreek and of Kurgan (or Mound) culture int. ‘déna)"3#8 The Dictionary by Walde Pokorny, which also Facke = jos sources» refers to, has only the root *da- and “de without explaining either the quantity or the o- Socalism of "Don" (or the quantity of is o-vocalm) "* But Since there isan initial dana for Sanat, int fe possible that the root had had a final laryngial originally? The Greek word ‘Srids (fa, fodder’ "nourshinent for beau’) could porlly be attached to “dan'2 Then, being analyzed further a8 “any it would remind of "dase, Nevertheless, {think that the most plausble explanation is given by W. P. Schmid, He interprets the difference in quantity beaween danw and davao! with {quanciatlve ablaut relations, “danor being the outcome of the zero grade (Schinndstf). He also brings the forms ‘eth -o- vith those with “ue together: dan/ dun ain Laan dena ‘lunaoa /‘pool, puddle'/- The vowel gradation ha then several parallels: eg. nox - vOE, also eal “UAL, Lithuanian agus Pnail/~ Vo, et, Is clear, he writes thatthe dave mst hhave had their homeland in'the Fegion which had the 2er0 rade form dom, not that of dan Then he proceeds to the Conclusion that the later Greeks must have lved west of the Indo-ranians, in the North-Pontc region." Usener’s and attr 1580300, 2S 1080-75 Phoneme ewpol, Lat wo thnks tha “The spedtios of eng inand de saRSEN Ushi 10830811 Seetsow (90 dre ext the we cenlon: lume 28, Number 12 Spring/ Sumer 2000Focke's remarks, however, could have been enough for the Dorposes of Sakellarow. As tothe quantity for a more precise ‘xpanation ofthe Sanskat and Greek phonological realties he ould have consulted the two classic works by W. S. Allen! ‘One has somedmes the feeling that he is overzealous with his solutions. Ie is surprising how aptly he managed to give an IE imerpretation to "Saubiaray’ instead ofa Semite one that seemed wo be very probable. 'am not convinced that al Semitic ‘lements must be ept away ftom Greek sol The interpretation In question gives the impression of a ptt nap Farther, itis noe clear what S. means by comparing Danan to Pelasgian! ‘Should Pelasgian be an “innovator language? think that misleading to label this language - even iin a restricted sense! Innovator because ofthe sou shift AMA it has According to ‘what the “pelagiant” claim, ataching this language to Hitite regarding both very archaic languages, the case could be be the ‘opposite one.” For a deuiled evaluation of Sakelfiriow 1980 [Bom the linguistic Wewpoine I reer tothe long review article by G. Magoulas (Mayouids 1982) ‘Sakellariou has undertaken one of the most dificult asks of IE prehistory. So his work is certainly challenging. What I Find amazing in his work, even in absence of the “Eubnd et dialects ~ is that he gives archaeological movements together ‘ath other related events in a continous rendesing fromm the Beginnings inthe early homeland snl the "end in historical times. Avrendering, despite reveal problematic points, very persuasive on the whole, But since Sakellarow has announced & Fourpart synthesis (of which we have only Sakellariow 1977 and 1578253, Should we reckon aa wha couple anos ad Dam The ee pate rfc nding ter ne fae ane ng Espen godess Tn)» ester (1900648) Or wth anos anes THe ane Dv tested epigraphy om tar (Plain 1 BCS) ened iy ear 0022) wh Be te 1iaten 9888695, Ale 1087 (Second ein: 1670425. The same unforinate wording to be eoretedm Seer 191165 (ur Inge ienlan ong vue sre nos eng thw in Goat). "ee apace er mt way te une ap quite onmasiony etry mony iets Sison prt ai pps (Seto S88) Wissel 16D, CE oukds (CHE ISD for cean problems of “notte” eatepiiot im genera Fr he pepo Sablon Birsatbdnat, es Among hem sol). Hata beled by “The fara of Inde European Sis Proto Gaon he Keron Thy 8s 1980), no final asessment can be given. I would like to observe provisionally that for the sake of clarity it may be preferable to Abandon explicit references to the Kurgan’ Theory Connexion wih the Prote-Grecks, This does not necessarily mean thatthe theory should be rejected. but rather that i ‘would be desirable to bypass the superfvoas arguments around the pros and cons of the theory, removing the basi for ‘comments like thi: "the theory of M. Gimbutas (--) isa popular fallacy in archaeology", and to study rather the fondly -a term used by Sakelarou himself as he explained his views to mein prehistoric movements which can be linked to the later Greeks, and diva I uote at this point that the term coninram isa very important concept both in TE and Greek Hinguistics, and in archaeology. Makiay 1992, always rejecting the Kurgan Theory, writes thus "Distibution maps of ‘genuine Kurgan urials clearly show that cheir spread never ‘Exceeded the river Tiea in the central Hungarian Plain and ‘occupied only segment of Northeastern Bulgaria south of the Lower Danube" The diserepancies between Makkay 1991 sand 1992 as well asthe argumtents of others, encourage the thought thar my suggestion fs reasonable and would avoid exposing the Kurgan Theory to such summary rejection, Sakellariou docs not - by the way» identify the bearers of the Korgan Culture widh the Indo-Europeans which would be 2 simplification of his views: he states that only a part of them eveloped this culture." At the time of Sakellarou’s ist iG Antony ig it wo her te rman gt hla rg nd a ea Bonga a Saecl betty eka at EO Ping chem acetate Gy eS TASH ott on pede re ne oe aeeop svt spaing Mites pty ta PE TERE nena at ing nde via it meat tee by ene otal bt tests eect Ei porta ea ieee mae erry tree aetna ce ay Baa pete la tt nao can ae at et ‘Rrgan traits wer rsh by vader fom the Foti exon and tat the (Sey enh area Ts lume 28, Nuno 1. 2 Sring/Sume 2000oo AL Katona formulation, J. Harmatta expressed some critical thoughts on this theory. He argues that the Kurgan Theory docs not take Account ofthe fact that Western and Eastern TE languages do hot have common agricultural terminology. Owing to the difference in terminology, thelr paring of the ways must have becurred before agriculture made its entry in history. But the Kagan populations knew both agriculture and stock-breeding, CContequently thete populations ean be connected w only one part of the Indo-Europeans. Considering the continuity inthe evolution of the burial customs on the steppes, these populations can only be elther the Indodranians or the Fanians. Then he reiatke that the term "Kargen Cre" ik ‘misleading, oo, giving the impression that all tumuli are also! Kurgans which is not the case™ These remarks are. constructive and should be correct, they neither contradict * ‘Sakellrtow's theory nor necessitate strictly rejecting ll ews on the Kurgans. In ths context, i does not then seem probable thse the postion about "the central place of Prot»Greck and Indo-Iranian within the IE domain"? is acceptable. One shosld speak of anrof the IE centers. And it must have been & tmemtcenter for IE conditions, "As fr de immigration ofthe later Greeks, considering the facts on a mentalsie bai! itis impossible that some sort of {gl must all be revised sharply upward” (19821). "ijn 19712674 Campa what Sakti rem dee {at do nao’ frac bt deta enon de wee ‘i te pn pr eae a ue te at te ete” (ttc (a eta TOPS My seeps (Gites T Baro Abc. and sere te opel ein pcb analy 'sscaube aor ‘hic ings thes wi imere, and it of al in Aerie a counter eee arama, a ‘Tha ural of ade Burpean Suis ‘Prt Grate and Kargon They % continuity should not exist. Therefore, when Maklay rejects ‘oth Kurgan Theory ar such and adopng sr posse id in investigating Greek prehistory is enc i ot constuctve and contradic his own thesis authorizing ong lasting eaturl ‘fontien in another archacologal context te the ceninaum ‘ofthe Linear Pottery People whom he regards ws being Inde Europeans immediatly before their final Gsinteraion =" 1 find 4 contradiction betreen adopting te immigration route ofthe later Gresks and excluding archacologial aces, and ko, as tepard the ating route, besweenhiatbay 1991 snd 1903 8 Rirther, considering the extremely rch heritage as seen in the Greek mythology and epic pocty, and ako shown iy ment n gee ep ep by Rais rer og Srege Melle ier! A small Tiel tobe seg, Mailer put earlier! A smal group i not likly to the bearer of ths very teh spinal material One should bea in mind a much more spacious presence and s much more comprehensive ‘conquest One has the impression that the Simran” Knew vty well whee dey were going to and why, nd tat they served in due course They However a suange ontradition beoween the very ich spinal entge and the oot archacologieal material of the immigrants Sakellarion Enphasizes several times! This needs farther lnvesgation, 1 Should suppose that the conquest -and IE expansion in gencral ‘must have had, at leat in several case, song deoogial” rmottes!5! Iti also lear that the “newcomers” had to “hoe io approaches and kink tha ah dence wate mt be ware Up bent, under te contant spans a bee esa. Socata xpreses ho in yar yay en he sco unde he being erbdologequttom”- stout Spa pasduapale and tera (at ‘via eae gba 12 on pombe change nr ponton but thldoes na ape 1h pono ie an on cali (neni in) yuo ad ‘ede wear de par denn” Btls TS). ie Sten oe 'SiLfleon wes (ting “Lion's speculon’); “hat hey (he tndo- "uropeant] wo pe hee gba in ponderous ox cr rh te Ras sexton lange nis untoonh ern same ob ee oe SEAR" heh Soi specon® pape on te nov atone 28, Nambr 1 & 2, Spring/ Some 20006 AL Katona conquer" huge areas, relatively densely populated by inhabitants with an advance chlzation. With a paraphrase of Sakellariou's thesis I would dare to ask though Ihave no hard cvidence at my disposal ifwe should reckon wth the presence fof the later Greeks and many other IE populations! -in the Balkans somehow in the sense Chadwick docs this with the Dorians. He rejects Kretschmer's thesis about the “third (Dorian) invasion” and thinks thatthe later were throughout present in Mycenaean Greece, Sakellariow himeelf posite {ntensive cultural and economic exchanges in the north of the Balkans during the Neolihie Period, before IE invasion! Te is clear from linguistic and archacologial contexts that the indo: ‘curopeanization of Greece and ofthe Appenine peninsula Were ‘vo parallel proceses. I should lke to draw atention toa rm IM. Balloting ates in many of his writings with various degetes ‘of emphasis. One classic formulation of his i this: "Scholl ven went so far as to deny or minimize the invasions, and Sstuibuted the establishment of Indo-European languages tothe {nflraion of small groups or to politcal or commercial contact, without a change in population in the full sense ‘These notions were expressed by Patrons term “lingustc ferments™ 19° Ic seems to me that some tort of infiltration should be borne in mind Both in the case of the prehistoric ‘movements a¢ well asthe “arrival” of the ProtoGreeks, and of the other directions of TE expansion, As for methodology aad fruitfulness or not of cooperation between archaeology and linguistics, I remind chat Chadwick wrote as carly a8 1907 (reviewing 8, Hood's book "The Home ofthe Heros the Asan {efor the Grek, London, Thames and Hudson, 1967), under the provocative tile “Greekless Archaeology, thatthe Snvaders ‘were not Greeks but they spoke an IE language "which as a Fesult of mixing with an ealer unkown language emerged se ERC acters tear asa: Cla ke oe aera seb toa none ra a ik FAST The journal of Inde Bepan Stes Proto Gand he Kurgon Thay ” ‘reek’ This ari i in a nearexplicit way alo a pea for lnterdsciplinarty. Bight years ater Chadwick repeated his thesi "the Greek language srote through the misture of wp of Indoropean speakers with eatcr populaon, nd this group penetrated Greece at sone ume Suring the Middle Helladie or Early Helldic I period” On the ser hand, Maklay has an important detail tat he does no develop propery He loalins an archacologisl migratory mmovemen {nthe Great Hungarian Plain (the casters pare of the Carpathian Basin), uring slowly tothe south, that ofthe ate beaters of the Linear Petry doubtless Indo-Europeans ‘whom he observes even cross the Danube near Belgrade Sporoximately in the mid 3rd millenium By then he andons theta sang tat no more endence exits" This Tmovement, again, teatinds of the "second descendence™ in ‘Stkelarin’s work, The three quartersofarhole solution put together ftom Makkay 1991 and 1992 would pechape throw some light alton the fact why and ow the’ Prove Greek Coming down the Balkans, cred to the west ss described shove nthe al systemataton of Sakeliario 1980. seems to be much more constructive to adopt interdiseiplinarty again «in this eae between mental 28d cbjectivsm «than to subordinate atempes at explaining the “arrival of the Proto Greeks to the acceptance of the Kusyan ‘Theory oro tejecion. The movement ofthe Linea Posty Fea aR ny ies ae Soe eens jemand is pe apie ares accent marae, Siteas mene te ati ne ‘lan Cu dg sone fol Eke ah el ie ey cy hector et etieanmetccra tga Serra deme silences at faving ne Seat meee fis a waa a hina obama ne A ag ty ats + et Valu 28, Naber 2 Spring/ Sommer 20008 AL Katona pela he "sod eenden’ pt ee poper ote tiga alphas lp ay tom ng gee pop fa sp a It SS Ta iguana he escapee Se Ree terete agai aa SSSI he nega af 2 oe Sins eka he ede a epee Sudan as tae ta SES ening ad, webteng ‘Ming emtaticn, ube eee Seu nEs ara alnaeBccpe mace ; ‘ain Londoo! Oxioe Unites ren (eprint i) ww fran Site accra Son teantnmnniamurcers, oe TE ee tt ant ironiasceasy eee 2 Fie nao ten Pin ot Sooke ~ ad 2 Se is ip eee heame may i cueceoenneneenes Soeere ieee nr a ae eee eo esc! Te arapartmgan mi ee Eebcbentinesareceee te ee et iemeaeer Penta eooinesserserana AGT "the rebirth Gree Language Atal Ua Mane, The journal of ledeBepn Sts Proto Grand he Kurgon Thay *” 1977 nik 6 Bonageok ik maga ann nd Fane ‘pan jaan ond Hangar Baraca (), ‘gar nar Tarane Sana Hang Pi ‘pier budapwe Akademia Ks as Roger Tat it tn op Cage No oe 15 tle nae reo ey ete eee ieeteanrigaemernae™ Scar TSE Poon a ex of the ldo uropean Source of Water Gad ergata a er ay Ene mig reas tna eerie ice mart “au 2 pag nn Py hsp Saoeeteara tne rnin von RS tem mo ne vom ‘ghrp Pa te acre ee Pe Mi a ep o ‘moti jur ecm par Ov Mase Pars Kika saga ae 1 pe ean cnt ney om ora eee com TSB De Gann niga Sci Hedberg: Ct TH88” LAPD, de Nea et gone de one a: hago ‘th ep Ba Et Drs bes 1090 OFT ARISIREE KAT BONES OMA AEE THE EAABNIKHE Valu 28, Nude 2 Spring/Stme 2000100 AL Katona ee ee (porns np Treanor ower tae se Ta Te nt tre ce sar oft seeeiee cemnreeeros hea ee Ket Ingeefcicungone ines thse Renee aT ee eee ree ee Terie aires a ee hecho en occ ee Reshma one soon be Fer ane nfute Pda Cece Bde fetes te Ola ST certuiaueaerit trator twig Seco et eet nw tle ete cen EE eer aint ta sno $e ot free heenintcc es ton eae pn tg ape ‘fats Concerning the oto reese Ans ntl - eee 1 EA asap ipa Een, Soames sae tet SFO amet fr Odi at nr ie Se et ft el re See eer eee ante Sale ee gp ee pontine oe see eS ‘Nachdruek), ‘ie Deco The foura of IndeBurpan Sis An Archaeological Scenario for the “Coming of the Greeks” ca. 3200 B.C. John E, Galeman Coma ist er au dt Ind tpn ngage a ety Soe shai ey ese ge he "Endcap tha a ben gy depp orem lore ‘tunand of Greece four not the Cade inane or Cre) {Btaenend by he Cyl nde they evenly et the Hany Helden ofthe td milena RC The ater “rome Age population f mann Grece nas ugly cen fom tats EA ad the Gee ngage ner Bee the Late Bronte Age ras developed om he guage Get eg word wat endings nn ann) aye "a atolte des gen hee are in accord ih arated adtocatbon ‘agen lain Gres an appreciation Bac Sine daaton af ‘ow ew Sd ei he somes arp or of “Then Ear Brose Age (A) ed of the whole Grek penne. {ec lie common ange rong Ety Heal EX 0 he FRA ot {anal and outhern Greer (02 mut of Pema) The BAA cle ‘Tremaly i ofen eed Bary entlan and tha of Macedonia Esty ‘Mceonln Sn sts fe. Cali 192) exe he erm Fah ease {ince the ERA O These Late Newt pre a Greece, ere ‘Seite sete tered ty er cl he Fin! Neste fevog or the Chast prod. un andemod 0 immediately SS{' funk fa AlnmSter, Selos Andreot, Joho nif. Michal emo, Ra a Dro ol rg, ban ‘Garmeno, Kowa Kew Marparria kramer Nia Loney Al ‘Nasu eget is Parent, Daniel len Ra,Aantos Sumpron anderen! anonnaut fener for hep cmt anor SSREG Aa Siren tre ety om Sear ‘Bepermen of Clete Ur offroad 1 1 ‘UnhentédeSionuél on ach 16.8000 Volume 28, Nader 1&2 Spring/Ssome 2000 re eee