jchadwick gk dialects and prehistory

7/28/2019 JChadwick Gk Dialects and Prehistory

1/14

The Greek Dialects and Greek Pre-History

Author(s): John ChadwickSource: Greece & Rome, Second Series, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Mar., 1956), pp. 38-50Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/641827 .

Accessed: 20/04/2011 03:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to Greece & Rome.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/641827?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/641827?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/14

THE GREEK DIALECTS AND GREEKPRE-HISTORY

By JOHN CHADWICKONE of the disadvantages of specialization is that other scholarsoften wish to make use of, but cannot evaluate, work in otherfields. Moreover, it usually takes some time for a new theory to spreadbeyond the confines of a narrow specialist circle. The purpose of thepresent article is to summarize in English, and comment on, a newtheory of the relationships of the Greek dialects and the historical factsto be deduced from them. The theory is mainly the result of the applica-tion to the ancient Greek dialects of the new technique of linguisticgeography, which was first devised for the study of the Romance langu-ages. The basis of what follows is an important article by E. Risch,'following on a remarkablestudy by W. Porzig.Z The latter, though onlyrecently published, was written some time ago, and some of its conclu-sions are disproved by the new evidence made availableby the decipher-ment of the 'Minoan' Linear B script. Risch has been able to make someuse of this, and it provides a valuable check on the soundness of the newtheory.The theory which with small variations has held the field for the lasthalf-century and more is briefly as follows. The ancients, from Hesiod3on, distinguished three families of Greek-speaking peoples: Dorians,Ionians, and Aeolians. Modern scholars accepted this as a rough basis,for the Doric and Ionic dialects were plainly recognizable. It provednecessary to split Doric or West Greek into North-West Greek (Phocian,Locrian, and Elean) and Doric properor Peloponnesian Doric (includingall the Peloponnese together with Corinth and Megara, but excludingElis and Arcadia; also the southern Aegean islands, Crete, Melos, Thera,Rhodes, Cos, etc.). Ionic was divisible into Attic and Ionic, and in thelatter three regional units might be discerned. Aeolic was less easily

I 'Die Gliederung der griechischen Dialekte in neuer Sicht', Museum Hel-veticum,xii (I955), 61-76. I am indebted to Professor Risch for having read andcriticized this article in draft; but on points where this differs from his articlethe responsibility is mine. I also wish to acknowledge helpful suggestions fromDr. M. Ventris, Dr. F. H. Stubbings, and Mr. R. M. Cook.2 'Sprachgeographische Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Dialekten',IndogermanischeForschungen, xi (1954), 147-69.3 "EArlvos 8' EyEvovTro pAoTroT- ou poPacto5sI AOp65 -rE o00065rTEKaiAloAoSiwrrtoX&ppTs (Fr. 7).


3/14

THE GREEK DIALECTS AND GREEK PRE-HISTORY 39identified, but generally Lesbian, Thessalian, and Boeotianwere groupedunder this label, though the latter two were distinguished by being'mixed' dialects, which had suffered strong Doric or North-West Greekinfluence. Furthermore, it was necessary to postulate a fourth group,clumsily named Arcado-Cyprian, to account for the remarkablecoinci-dences between the historically isolated areas of Arcadia and Cyprus.This was closely linked with Aeolic. The map (Fig. I) shows the group-

Doric and N.W.GreeklonicArcadianAeolic

FIG. I. The Greekdialects in the Classicalperioding of the dialects of classical times. No completely satisfactory accountcould be given of the genetic relationships between the dialects, but theusual scheme proposed took approximately the form shown in Fig. 2.In historical terms this theory led to the supposition of three (or more)distinct waves of Hellenic invasion of the Greek mainland. The spreadof Doric was obviously the most recent and could be equated with the'return of the Heraclidae' of literary sources; nothing is likely to shakethis part of the theory. About the pre-Dorian migrations there was


4/14

Common Greek

West Greek East Gree

Doric North-West Greek 'Achaean'

(N.) Aeolic

Corinthian Argolic Laconian Cretan, etc. Elean Phocian Locrian Boeotian Thessalian LesbianFIG. 2. Relationship of the Greek Dialects.


5/14

THE GREEK DIALECTS AND GREEK PRE-HISTORY 41much argument, but almost all scholars agreedon two separateinvasions,Ionian and Achaean or Aeolian-the names were used indiscriminatelyowing to the view that Arcado-Cyprian was merely the southern branchof Aeolic. Now it is clear that the dialects of Arcadia and Cyprus mustgo back to a widespread 'Achaean' dialect, which elsewhere was overlaidor displaced by the immigrant Dorians, and since the colonization ofCyprus is known from archaeological evidence to have begun in theMycenaean period, it could be deduced that this 'Achaean' was the com-mon dialect of southern Greece at that time. Legend, however, told ofIonians in the northern parts of the Peloponnese, and there must there-fore have been an Ionian invasion followed by an Achaean, or anAchaean followed by an Ionian. Various reasons led most scholars toprefer the first alternative.' But there is very little clear evidence for thereplacement of lonians by Achaeans. Most of the statements are am-biguous: for instance Herodotus' remarkzthat the lonians at one timeoccupied the part of the Peloponnese subsequently called Achaea doesnot prove that they were expelled by Achaeans; it need mean littlemore than that Attica and Achaea were once part of a linguistic unity.Similarly the statement of Pausaniass3hat before the return of the Hera-clidae the Argives spoke the same dialect as the Athenians does not provethat Argos spoke Ionic.The archaeological evidence shows a clear break between Early andMiddle Helladic (c. 1900 B.c.), which is now generally equated with thearrival of the first wave of Greek immigrants; a further but much lessserious break separates Middle and Late Helladic (the Mycenaeanperiod) about I600 B.C. This has been used to support the theory oftwo pre-Dorian invasions.From the linguistic point of view, too, a major difficulty lay in deter-mining the place of Ionic. The separation into Attic and Ionic could nodoubt be referred to the migrations of the dark ages; but what were itsearlier affinities? It seems to have (a) special features of its own, (b) linkswith Arcado-Cyprian, (c) links with Lesbian, (d) links with Doric.Linguistic links may be represented by what are called isoglosses, i.e.lines on a map enclosing areas which have in common a particularlinguistic feature. In dealing with a situation previous to the historicalmigrations an actual map is little use; but the principle remains the same.The more isoglosses, the stronger the link. These agreements may beinterpreted in two ways: as the common inheritance from a period of

I An admirable history of this argument has been provided by A. Tovar,'Primitiva extensi6n geograiphica del Jonio', Emerita, xii (1944), 253-67. Hehimself defends the view of three invasions. 2 vii. 94. 3 ii. 37. 3.


6/14

42 THE GREEK DIALECTS AND GREEK PRE-HISTORYunity, or as the result of contact between the two groups, which inprimitive societies generallymeans geographical proximity.' If, however,we can establish a chronology, even if only a relative one, of the changeswhich separate and unite the dialects, we shall be able to distinguishbetween these two possibilities. This is the great merit of Risch's work.A feature which is common to Attic and Ionic, but is an innovation inboth, belongs to a time before they became separated (e.g. the change ofa o r1);one which shows divergent treatmentof aninherited form belongsto a period after their separation (e.g. the contraction of a- o). Relativechronologies too can be established:the changeof *rravaatoTraaran Ionictook place after the change of a to qrhad ceased to operate (or it wouldhave given *Trfica); on the other hand the change of a to qr ook placebefore he loss of digammaafterp,andhenceAtticK6prl *Ko6pr < *K6pF,since *K6pawould have been maintained(cf. Xcbpa).An absolute date fora>rl can perhaps be obtained from the borrowed name Maoli (kept inCyprian) from Persian Mdda, which becomes Ionic Mfi8o. Since theMedes can hardly have become known to the Greeks before the ninthcentury at the earliest, this implies that the change was not completedby that date. If we accept that, and there are other reasons for believingit to be comparatively recent, then it follows that three of the conspicu-ous characteristics of Ionic are due to post-Mycenaean developments.We must now consider the links between Ionic and Arcado-Cyprian.It is at once clear that they are strong. Here are some of the chief pointsin which they agree against Doric:

Ionic Arc.-Cypr. DoricFinal--r, type SiScort . . . . -at -al -T'Towards' . . . . . . rrp6 rr6 rroriMedial -ty-, etc . . . . . -r6ao -r6aos -r6aaoInfin. act. of athematic verb. . . -val -val -PEVNom. plur. of article . . . . o o r0oConditional particle . i EI, i atModal particle . . . 6v av, KE KaTemporal particle . . . . 6T OE 6Ka'Wish' (Att. poihopai) . . . pouA- poX- 8rlh-Ist pers. plur. act. termination . . -PEV -aEV?) -aES

What then of the differences? Are they such that we must still supposea separate proto-Ionic branch, or could they have arisen as the result ofI For the sake of clarity this ignores two other possibilities: the presence ofan inherent tendency leading to the same change but actualized after the separa-tion of the dialects; and the independent development of the same change in un-related areas. The latter are characterized by few or single isoglosses; a com-mon origin will be shown by their number.


7/14

THE GREEK DIALECTS AND GREEK PRE-HISTORY 43differing developments from one common ancestor? This is the crucialquestion. A few can be safely put down as recent Arcado-Cyprian in-novations. For instance, the change of Ev o iv is not likely to be very old;it indicates a close pronunciation of Ebefore a nasal, but it is rare exceptin the preposition, and is not universally observed there. Tegea presentsfor the multiples of a hundred the termination -KitaOt instead of Ionic-KiCTOtl;ut Stymphalos has a form in -K6oaot,and we may suspect thatthe Tegean form has been contaminated by Doric -KrTiOt; here is noexample in Cyprian. Arcadian oav is also an innovation (shared withWest Greek) for the original Fiivpreserved in Old Attic and in traces inIonic. The absence of apocope in the prepositions (forms such as 6v,K&T,Trdxp)s a characteristicof Ionic which differentiates it from all otherdialects. But there is elsewhere no consistent pattern: forms with andwithout apocope occur in the same dialect, and the prepositions whichadmit it differ from one dialect to another. This clearly points to a re-latively late development.But a much larger group of differences between Ionic and Arcado-Cyprian has one remarkablething in common; they are points in whichIonic agrees with Doric. Here is a list of the chief ones:

Ionic Doric _ Arc.-Cypr.Labio-velars+E (e.g. in TETpa-) . rE- rE- T3E, TrE-Vocalic . . . . pa/ap pa/ap opAlternation of a with o . . &Kxa &Ka 8KO3rd pers. sing. middle primary.termination' . .. -Trat -Tat -Tot'Contract' verbs . . . 4-io -i -1rL'From' . . . . . &r6+gen. &r6 + gen. &rr" dat.Ev/EvS + acc. . EiS, ~ i(v)Sv

Alternation occurs in certain words where Ionic has a but Arcadiano: e.g.5EKa,Arc. 8~KO;KarT6v,Arc. hEKTor6v.The 'contract' verbs in Arcadian(and in Aeolic) follow the athematic conjugation in -pi.The use of ElS r Swith the accusative meaning 'into' is an importantfactor, for it can be roughly dated. It must go back to Evs,a form pre-served in Argive and Cretan. This form therefore belongs to a periodbefore final -vSin Ionic had been reduced to -s (as in ?Vaaxs *?cirav(T)s,TroGS*-r6vs), i.e. before Ionic had split up, say approximately Iooo B.C.A later borrowing is excluded by the differing developments inside Ionic.

Contrary to the traditional view the Doric-Ionic form has recently beenproved to be the innovation; see M. S. Ruiperez, 'Desinencias medias primariasindoeuropeas', Emerita, xx (1952), 8-31.


8/14

44 THE GREEK DIALECTS AND GREEK PRE-HISTORYOn the other hand this cannot be a very ancient form, because otherlanguages show that ?v was originally used to express motion as well asrest (cf. Latin in). In fact the original use of Evwith the accusative is re-tained not only in Arcado-Cyprian, but also in North-West Greek;thus 'vs is an innovation made after the division of West Greek into itstwo main branches. It would seem therefore that it belongs precisely tothe period of the Dorian migrations. This makes it likely that the otherpoints in which Ionic agrees with Doric were introduced at the sametime. Thus if this theory is true, we can deduce the historical factthat round about 1ooo B.C.a dialect of the Arcadian type came for aperiod under Doric influence; but this soon ceased, and the dialectcontinued its development separately, subsequently breaking intotwo branches (Attic and Ionic). The Ionic invasion of Greece is afiction.

The decipherment of the clay tablets in the script known as MinoanLinear B has revealed a Greek dialect of the fifteenth to thirteenth cen-turies B.C.' This dialect, which we have provisionally named Mycenaeanafter the archaeological culture with which it is associated, is found indocuments from Mycenae, (Messenian) Pylos, and Knossos. Owing tothe clumsy script and the scanty remains so far known it is impossible todetermine its treatment of all the important linguistic features whichwould enable us to classify it in relation to the historic dialects. But thereis enough clear evidence to show its affinities, and what is more to con-firm some of the dates proposed above.On theoretical grounds it has long been held that the pre-Doricdialect of the Peloponnese, and probably of much of southern Greeceand the islands, was an ancestor of Arcadian. This is amply confirmedby our new Mycenaean evidence. This shows the change of -rt to -ol(e-ko-si ? ekhonsiz);po-si, 'towards', is the link between original (Doric)Tro-riand Arcadianvr6S;o-te,'when', = 6TrE;uture do-so-si = dasonsi;roor or from vocalic r (qe-to-ro- = quetro-,Att. -re-rpa-,Thess. TrE-rpo-;o-pe-za = torpeza


9/14

THE GREEK DIALECTS AND GREEK PRE-HISTORY 45wo- = ennewo-, Att. ivvEa-); middle 3rd pers. sing. termination -to =-toi (e-u-ke-to = eukhetoi,not an imperfect as at first suggested); a-pu(not &rr6;no evidence of case governed, but the preposition pa-ro has thedative where Att. -rrap has the genitive). There are also agreements invocabulary.There is one notable agreement with Attic: the form to-to 'this' =Old Attic TOTO = o-ro (an isolated case not properly explained).Note also the preservation of C'iv:Myc. ku-su = xun, ku-su-to-ro-pa2=xunstrophd= avr-rpoqpl, 'aggregate'.In addition Mycenaean shows a number of very archaic features,some of which are preserved in no classical dialect. These form a valu-able check on our dating. The digamma seems to be preserved in allpositions;' as we have seen its loss to be post-Mycenaean in Ionic, thedialect which shows least trace of it, this is only what we should expect.The labio-velars are represented by a separate series of signs (trans-literated by q), except apparently before a. Here it seems to be partiallyconfused with p (if pa2 was in origin qa), and there are also signs of thisconfusion before o and a consonant (te-o-qo-ri-ja = te-o-po-ri-ja; ra-qi-ti-ra, = ra-pi-ti-ra2 = rhaptriai, 'seamstresses'.z In these positions thedevelopment of the labio-velar to a simple labial is common to all Greekdialects; but before e and i the treatment varies. Thus we may deducethat in these positions it retained something like its original sound downto Izoo B.c. Now this is one of the points in which Ionic agrees withDoric, both developing the labio-velars before e and i to dentals. Hereagain our new evidence confirms the dating. The presence of en- incompounds (e-ne-e-si - eneensi= Eveact), not in-, proves that the latteris a recent development in Arcado-Cyprian.The choice of an o vowel in words where Ionic has a (quetro-= TrETrpa-,etc.) seems at first sight to differentiate Ionic from Mycenaean. Here,however, we must beware of too strict an interpretation of the script,even in the alphabetic texts; the phonetic development was plainly froma full vowel r (which is found in cognate words in Vedic), through a stagewhen consonantal r was combined with an obscure vowel, to the finalproduct where the vowel was sufficiently like a or o in other words to beso written. On the theory of Risch we may have to have recourse to the

r The cases in which it appears to be missing are probably due to erroneousetymologies or are otherwise to be explained. But it is not safe to be too definite.2 On this see further L. R. Palmer, Bull. Inst. of Class. Studies London, ii(1955), 39-42. There is also an apparent instance of this confusion before e (inthe man's name appearing in the genitive as Qe-re-qo-ta-o, in the dative asPe-re-qo-ta, if this represents classical IrrlNA-). yprian as well as Aeolic hastraces of labialization here.


10/14

46 THE GREEK DIALECTS AND GREEK PRE-HISTORYsuggestion of Merlingen' that the Mycenaean spelling in fact implies avocalic oror at least an intermediate stage.Furthermore, we may speculate on the geographical location of theIonians in the Mycenaean period, if they are not identical with, or abranch of, the speakers of this proto-Arcadian. The Mycenaean dialectis attested at three sites (Mycenae, Pylos, and Knossos). But the LinearB script with which it is associated is also found on vases at Tiryns,Eleusis, Orchomenos, and Thebes. None of these legends are long orintelligible enough to betray the sort of difference which we might hopeto find between proto-Arcadian and proto-lonic; but the largest collec-tion, that from Thebes, shows several words agreeingwith the Mycenaeanforms on the tablets, and in particularthe peculiar form of the adjectivewa-na-ka-te-ro = wanakteros,'royal'. Herodotusz tells us that in earlytimes Boeotia was inhabited by lonians; even if their dialect differedslightly from that of the Peloponnese they apparently used the samescript.So far so good. But what of the Aeolic group? Here too a new viewhas emerged, which has the admirable result of solving some of theproblems of the Homeric dialect. In the past it was generally believedthat Lesbian represented the genuine Aeolic tradition, and that Thes-salian and Boeotian had been corrupted. Of Boeotian this is certainlytrue; more careful study, however, drew a distinction between East andWest Thessalian, the former being less influenced by West Greek. Butthe remarkablecontribution of Risch and Porzig has been to undermineLesbian's claim to purity. It differs from East Thessalian in just thosepoints where it might have been influenced by Ionic-a highly suspiciousfact in itself, and doubly damning when it is shown that these are them-selves recent growths in Ionic. Innovations are found in Lesbian, whereEast Thessalian has an earlier form:

E. Thess. I Lesbian IonicSecondary -va- . . . . rax&a rraTica C-cra?v/liv+ acc. Ev r:S r':,S-i- . . . . KarlyviTroS KarIyvlTroS Kaoiyvll-ros'Towards' . . . . rroi rrp6s rrp6SGen. sing. of o-stems . . -oto (later-ot) -co -o'Wish' . . . . . pA- pohA- povN-The change of --rT o -at is typical of East Greek as againstWest Greek;but Thessalian and Boeotian in this respect fall on the West Greek side ofthe fence. Thus its presence in Lesbian may be due to Ionic influence,W. Merlingen, Bemerkungen ur Sprache von Linear B (Vienna, 1954), 3-5.

2 v. 58. 2.


11/14

THE GREEK DIALECTS AND GREEK PRE-HISTORY 47instead of its absence in Thessalian and Boeotian being due to WestGreek influence. The same applies to Eis or iv, rrp6Sor ro-ri,p36'olapaifor P6Xnopai.Moreover, the differences between literary Lesbian andthelater inscriptions are explicable as due at least in part to the advance ofthe Ionic tide. In the treatment of -va- (rraicaa, tc.) we have alreadyseenthat proto-lonic retained the v; the vocalization of this v to Ioccurs else-where (Elis, Cyrene) quite independently, but its presence at Chiosshows clearly the mixture of Ionic and Aeolic elements on the Asiaticcoast. Its absence from Homer, too, probably means that it can bedated after the eighth century.This picture of proto-Aeolic will account for a puzzling feature of theHomeric dialect: the presence of rro-ri. If, as we now believe, theHomeric dialect is an amalgam containing Mycenaean, Aeolic, and OldIonic elements, then rro-ri an be explained only on the assumption thatone of those dialects maintained it; since Mycenaean has po-si and Ionicand later Lesbian rrp6S, hen it must belong to the Old Aeolic stratum.'The striking feature of proto-Aeolic is thus the preservation of --ri,both in the preposition and the verbal forms. This clearly separates itfrom Mycenaean; and Porzig's theory, formed in advance of the directevidence, that the Mycenaeans spoke a form of Aeolic is thus provedwrong in one majorpoint. It cannot, however, be denied that Mycenaeanand Aeolic are still very closely linked. East Thessalian is the onlydialect to preserve the genitive singular ending -oto, which is familiarin Homer and the only form found in Mycenaean (-o-jo). Some haveregarded the hypothetical *-oo which underlies Doric, Lesbian, andArcadian -coand Ionic and Attic -ou as a separate form; but I incline tothe view that it is merely a variant due to a differing treatment of inter-vocalic -y- (originally -hy-), in the one case forming a diphthong and inthe other disappearing completely. It is paralleled in the adjectives ofmaterial of the type of the Homeric XpoUEios,Xpo~EOs, here Mycenaeanhas no less than three variant forms, -e-jo, -e-o, and -i-jo, the last cor-responding to Lesbian Xpoatos. Mycenaean also agrees with all threeAeolic dialects in the use of patronymic adjectives in place of the geni-tive of the father's name: e.g. AlektruwnEtewoklewfios,'son of Eteocles'.Here we must assume a change in custom which affected even Arcadianand Cyprian after the date of the Mycenaean tablets.

The possibility that Hom. TroTrls a replacement for Myc. posi does not alterthe deduction, for on the older view that Lesb. rrp6os original, the only possibleorigin for TroTris West Greek, or the mainland Aeolic dialects supposed to beunder West Greek influence. The transmission of such an isolated form toIonia seems most unlikely.


12/14

48 THE GREEK DIALECTS AND GREEK PRE-HISTORYRisch wisely does not attempt any historical reconstructions on thebasis of his theory. But its value is obviously enhanced if it leads to amore satisfactory account of the prehistoric migrations. The position ofAeolic is still not entirely clear, and the possibility that it represents a

separate wave of invaders cannot be excluded; it is, however, virtuallycertain that in Mycenaean times it did not extend south of the Isthmus.On the other hand it is weakly differentiated from both West Greek andMycenaean, which suggests a transitional area, such as linguistic geo-graphy shows to be often found on the borders of two well-markeddialects. It is therefore tempting to reconstruct the spatial relation-ships of the Greeks at about Izoo B.C. thus: the Dorians in the extremenorth-west and perhaps in contact with (non-Greek) Illyrians; theMycenaeans occupying all southern Greece, perhaps extending as farnorth as Boeotia; the Aeolians forming a buffer between them andcuttingoff the Dorians from the Aegean. The situation in Crete is obscure,since our records belong to a phase two centuries earlier. But, despitethe destruction of the palaces, Homeric references imply that an Achaeankingdom continued to exist at least in central Crete down to this date.We know that about i zoo B.C.the palace of Pylos was burnt; that alittle earlier considerable destruction took place at Mycenae, though theacropolis survived. Finally about I Ioo it too succumbed, and with itsfall the brilliant culture of the Mycenaean age undergoes an eclipse fromwhich it emerged only in the archaicperiod; even so the humbler art ofpottery shows a continuous sequence of development through Sub-Mycenaean and Geometric. We also know that during the same perioda Doric dialect spread over the Peloponnese and, losing its unity, gaverise to the specialized dialects of historical times.Is it possible to frame a rough theory which will account for thesefacts? There is no need to imagine that the Dorian invasion resembledthe Roman invasion of Britain in A.D. 43 or the Norman invasion ofio66. The analogy is much closer with the Saxon and Danish invasionsof the Dark Ages. Raiding bands of marauderswere probably attackingthe fringes of the Mycenaean empire long before its final fall; onlygradually would these raiders begin to found settlements in the newlands and to impose their rule on a population which no doubt survivedthe loss of their ruling class with little change. They may well have takena hand in the overthrow of their masters. The replacement of theirdialect is sufficiently accounted for by the prestige value of the speechof the new rulers; for these were no unintelligible foreigners, but spokea language very little different from their own. A Dorian would, itseems, have made himself understood in thirteenth-century Mycenae


13/14

THE GREEK DIALECTS AND GREEK PRE-HISTORY 49more easily than a Spartan in fifth-century Athens. Archaeologicallythere is a fairly consistent pattern marking the change from Mycenaeanto Sub-Mycenaean: the palaces are destroyed and with them the highestarts of civilization, such as writing.' At a lower level there is continuityas evidenced by the pottery. This has its analogue in the disappearanceof the Mycenaean feudal structure, clear evidence of which emergesfrom the tablets, and its replacement by an aristocracyin which extremesof wealth are avoided. The overlordship of Mycenae gives way to thebickering of petty states.The spread of the Dorians to Crete and the Dodecanese implies thatthey were not unacquainted with ships; and there is no reason to assumethat they learnt the arts of navigation only after they had settled in thePeloponnese. Thus it is likely that their raids were at first sea-borne.Such indeed were (and still are) the difficulties of communication innorth-west Greece that it is hard to see how any large-scale raids couldhave taken place by the land route. Ships must have been needed atleast to ferry the troops across the Corinthian gulf. Pylos could hardlyhave been attacked via the Isthmus while Mycenae still stood; and infact a series of tablets found in the palace of Pylos specifies allocations ofmen 'to guard the coastal areas'. Is it then impossible that when thispattern is repeated in Crete two centuries earlier here too the destroyerswere raiding Dorians? Homer certainly knew of Dorians in Crete,zthough Idomeneus still had his capital at Knossos.The legends which tell of Ionians in the Peloponnese seem to beadequately accounted for if we accept this as a name for a branch of theMycenaean ruling class. What the Mycenaeans of Pylos and Mycenaecalled themselves is still a subject of controversy; the Achaean name isthat attested by Homer, doubtfully supported by Hittite evidence. Butthere seems to be no reason for believing the Ionians to be linguisticallydistinct: the myth of the sons of Hellen has no room for Achaeans. Wecan now see too why the Neleid rulers of Pylos on their expulsion tookrefuge in Attica,3 the only important state to retain its integrity in theface of the Dorians. But we must not forget that even here the linguisticevidence shows that there was some, but short-lived, Dorian penetra-tion or influence.

An independent confirmation that Ionians must be equated withThere is no evidence yet that the Mycenaean (Linear B) script survived thefall of Pylos; the classical Cypriot syllabary appears to be derived from a relatedbut not identical Bronze Age script known as Cypro-Minoan. I remain scepticalof Prof. Wace's view that Linear B continued in use until it was replaced byalphabetic writing, and that the gap is due to the lack of suitable explored sites.

2 Odyssey xix. 177. 3 Hdt. v. 65. 3.3871.1 E


14/14

50 THE GREEK DIALECTS AND GREEK PRE-HISTORYMycenaeans comes from the demonstration' that the Hebrews by Yavanmeant not the west coast of Asia Minor, but the Greek settlements on thesouth coast-Rhodes, Pamphylia, and Cyprus; the same appears to betrue of the varying forms in which the name appears in Ugaritic, As-syrian, and Old Persian. But these lands were never 'Ionian' in 'thestrict sense. They were Mycenaean colonies, later in part overrun byDorians. It follows therefore that the name 'ldiovEs was applied, atleast by outsiders, to these Mycenaean colonists; in any case the namemust have been borrowed before the characteristicchanges of Ionic hadreduced it to "Ioves. 'IloveSoccurs once in Homer2in a 'recent' passage.But that the name is old is perhaps confirmed by a fragmentary tabletfrom Knossos (X 146) where we have i-ja-wo-ne, though this is morelikely to be the dative singular of a man's name than the nominativeplural of the ethnic.Thus the new theory is in itself attractive, for it takes account of thechronological sequence of dialect changes, instead of treating all the dif-ferences as of equal weight in determining their affinities. The evidenceof the Mycenaean tablets is strongly in its favour at any point which canbe tested. Finally, the reconstruction of Greek pre-history to which itleads has the merit of simplicity compared with the duplication inherentin the traditional view; the conscious unity of the Greeks, too, is ex-plained if their dialect differences are largely of recent growth, and thereis no need to assume that their linguistic unity had been seriously im-paired before their arrival in the Balkan peninsula.

I See W. Brandenstein, 'Bermerkungen zur V61kertafel in der Genesis',Festschrift Debrunner (Bern, 1954), 66-70.2 Iliad xiii. 685.

jchadwick gk dialects and prehistory

Documents