HESPERIA JJ (2OO8) THE LINGUISTIC Pages43I~4^4 CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION RECONSIDERED
ABSTRACT
Ascribingthe presence of speakers of Lesbian in thenortheast Aegean dur- inghistorical times to themigration of Aiolian tribes from mainland Greece receivesno supportfrom linguistics. Migration is notthe only or even primary wayin whichlanguages and dialectsmay spread. Moreover, on reexamina- tion,the idea of an Aiolicdialect group falls apart. Boiotian, separated by the FirstCompensatory Lengthening from Lesbian and Thessalian, appears as a conservativedialect, most closely related to WestGreek. In turn,Lesbian andThessalian are both archaic branches of Greek that share no demonstrable commoninnovations. They are bestviewed as twoseparate relic areas of a relativelyunaltered early Greek.
- To pass fromthis legendary world an aggregateof streamsdis- tinctand heterogeneous,which do notwillingly come intoconflu- ence,and cannotbe forcedto intermix- intothe vision afforded by Herodotus,we learnfrom him that in the500s B.C.the whole coast-regionfrom Dardanus southward to thepromontory of Lektum(including the town of Ilium),and fromLektum eastward to Adramyttium,had been Aeolised,or was occupiedby Aeolic - Greeks likewisethe inland towns of Skepsisand Kebren.1
This papergrew out of the researchof BrianRose, as set out in the pre- cedingarticle in thisissue of Hesperia?As head of the post-BronzeAge excavationsat Troy,Rose had long acceptedthe scholarlyconsensus in
1. Grote 1888, vol. 1, p. 305, refer- mightexpect fromthe rulesbut does markany (or an unknown) representa- = ringto Hdt. 1.149-151. not occur.The sign > means "develops tive of that class. So C any consonant; = - 2. Rose 2008. My thanksare due to to" (and the sign < means "develops H any laryngeal;Kw any labiovelar; = = Brian Rose, Don Ringe, Ronald Kim, from")an earlierform by regularsound P any labial; R any resonant(I, r, and the anonymousreviewers for Hes- changes.The sign -> means "is replaced myn); T= any dental; V= anyvowel. peria fordiscussion and clarifications. by,"i.e., develops froman earlierform An apostrophe(C) markspalataliza- Certain conventionsand abbrevia- by analogy,replacement, or some other tion. Glosses are given in single quotes - tions common in historicallinguistics nonphonologicalprocess. A dash marks ('moon'). Phonological rules or changes * are used in this article.An asterisk morphemeboundaries. ht, h2, and h3 are writtenwith a slash / to indicate marksan unattestedor reconstructed stand forthe e-ya-y and o-coloring the environmentand a blank _ to form.A daggert marksa formthat we laryngeals,respectively. Capital letters show where the phoneme stands:for
© The American School of Classical Studies at Athens 432 HOLT N. PARKER which Iron Age settlementsin the northeasternAegean were founded by colonistsfrom an Aiolic-speakingarea in mainlandGreece. When he examinedthe archaeological remains, however, he foundno good evidence forthis scenario, and was forcedto concludethat the communis opinio was incorrect.He asked me to contributea discussionof the linguisticsitua- tion.As I reexaminedthe data,it became clearthat the standardview of an Aiolic dialectfamily is faulty,and I too have been forcedto conclude, almostreluctantly, that our earlierideas cannotbe supported.
THE TRIPOD
The theoryof an Aiolian migrationrests on threelegs: archaeological, historical,and linguistic(Fig. 1). For the first,Rose concludes:"At no time duringthe early1st millenniumdo we have evidencefor attacks, forthe arrivalof a new populationgroup, or forany substantive change in ceramicproduction."3 Other scholars have noted,if not been bothered by,the lack of archaeologicalevidence. Gschnitzer, for example, writes: "The migrationto Asia Minor,which we couldassume was a consequence of the drivefor colonization, has apparentlynot yet been successfully dated archaeologically;it musthave occurredbefore the corresponding, but equallyundated, migration of the Ionians."4Coldstream expresses a similarview: "These Aeolians,according to literarysources, had migrated fromtheir former homes in Boeotia and Thessalyat least as earlyas the parallelmovement of Ionians; yet the archaeological record casts very little lighton thembefore the late eighthcentury. ... At presentwe have no reliablearchaeological evidence concerning the coming of the first Aeolians to Lesbos."5 Nor do theconflicting legendary accounts of the colonization of Aiolis supplyconvincing support. Though such accounts have been accepted as so- berhistory by some, Rose has shownhow these and othermythical accounts developedand were adaptedin the courseof the 6th-5thcenturies B.C. fora varietyof culturalpurposes.6 In particular,the genealogical accounts are merelyattempts to connectlocal aristocraciesto the royalfamily of Mycenaeor a putativeancestor Aiolos, who servesas a convenientfather example,Kw > T/_ e readsas "a labio- 3. Rose 2008,p. 420. 5. Coldstream2003, pp. 262-263. velarbecomes the corresponding dental 4. Gschnitzer2002, cols. 227-228. 6. Rose 2008,pp. 401-404. Ham- in theenvironment before e." Language I failto followthe author s use of"must mond(1975) usesThucydides' account abbreviations:Ark. = Arkadian;Att.- have"here. He giveshis reasons: "as to producedates supposedly accurate = Ion. Attic-Ionic;Boiot. = Boiotian; theyextended their territory to the to withina decade:Trojan War, ca. Cret.= Cretan;Cyp. = Cyprian;Dor. = northto thecoast of the A[eolians] 1200 B.C.;Thessalian invasion, ca. 1140; Doric;Eng. = English;Germ. = Ger- (Smyrnapreviously Aeolian; Phocaea Aiolicmigration to Lesbos,ca. 1130; man;Horn. = Homeric;Lak. = Lako- on theedge of the Aeolian hinterland; Dorianinvasion, ca. 112O.Thessalians nian;Lesb. = Lesbian;Myc. = Myce- Aeoliansubstrate in thenorthern and Boiotiansare imagined as a partof naean;Pamph. = Pamphylian;PGrk = Ioniandialects)." I am notsure I see an invadinggroup of Northwest Greeks, Proto-Greek;PIE = Proto-Indo-Euro- howany of these indicates priority of originatingin Epiros.Northwest Greek pean;SGrk = SouthGreek; Skt. = settlement.The linguisticevidence is and Doric aretreated correctly as sub- Sanskrit;Thes. = Thessalian.Common uselesssince most scholars explain var- familiesof West Greek, which, how- abbreviationsof grammaticalterms iousfeatures of Lesbian by recourse to ever,Hammond (1975, p. 703) holdsto (e.g.,nom., ace, sing.,pl.) arealso used. Ionicinfluence on it (see below). be closelyrelated to Mycenaean. THE LINGUISTIC CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION 433
Figure1. Distributionof traditional dialectgroups in theeastern Medi- figurefor the unaffiliated, and cannotbe usedto inferactual tribal, ge- terranean. AfterHainsworth 1982, p. 859, netic,or linguistic affiliations. Meyer in 1893rightly summed up: "One is map28 forcedto conclude that all Greektribes that were not Doric or Ionic were designatedAioHc.'"7 Unduepiety toward the classical sources is gentlycorrected by Cook: "Theconnexion with Orestes, which alone gives a precisedating, carries no conviction."As he furthernotes, "the Greek antiquarians . . . hada horror vacui Storieslike this were duly translated into a chronologicalsystem." He sensiblyconcludes: "The schematic prose traditions of the migrations to theEast Aegeanafter the Trojan War seemin generalto havebeen compilationsofthe fifth century B.C."8 Under that clear light, many pretty butfanciful maps showing the paths and even the exact dates of a complex seriesof migrations, invasions, and sackings must disappear.9 As Grotereminds us in thepassage quoted at thebeginning of this article,after such mythological history and reconstructions, there is only - a singlefact. As attestedby Sappho and Alkaios, at around600 B.C. we
7. RE 1,1893, col. 1031,s.v. Aioles mythologicalpersonal name Aeolus, 8. Cook 1975,p. 777. (E. Meyer).Gschnitzer (2002, col. 228) theearliest bearer of which was prob- 9. E.g., Hammond1976, p. 142.An pointsout, "Regarding the statement of ablysecondarily interpreted as thepro- adaptedversion of this map is stillpre- thescholars of antiquity that the A[eo- genitorof the A[eolians], and on the sented,albeit as a "conjecturalrecon- lians]had oncesettled in certainareas otherhand with the theories concerning struction,"in introductoryworks such ofGreece, there is, in contrast[to Thuc. thedivision of the Greeks into a few as Cartledge2002, p. 45. See also sim- 3.102.5],not much to go on.This is largetribes whereby the name A[eoli- ilarmaps in Grant1994, pp. 12-13; becauseon theone handthey are con- an] coveredeverything that could not be Morkot1996, p. 47. nectedwith the appearance of the ascribedto theDorians or the Ionians." 434 HOLT N. PARKER
- can push Grotes dateback a bit people on Lesbos werespeaking a dis- tinctiveGreek dialect, one thatmodern linguists consider to be relatedto thedialects of Boiotia and Thessaly (Fig. l).The onlysurviving leg ofthe tripod,then, is theidea thatin Thessalianand Boiotianwe have a case of a unifieddialect area splitby latecomers,in thiscase the Doric speakers of NorthwestGreek, with Lesbian as an outlyingprovince.10 That is the subjectof thispaper.
THE QUESTION OF AIOLIC
Chadwickhas observedthat "the ancients, from Hesiod on,distinguished threefamilies of Greek-speaking peoples: Dorians, Ionians, and Aeolians. Modernscholars accepted this as a roughbasis, for the Doric andIonic dia- lectswere plainly recognizable Aeolicwas lesseasily identified."11 There is indeeda problemwith the Aiolic dialect,and it needsreexamination. In antiquity,AioA,e\)<;, AioAaicoq, and derivativesreferred only to the inhabitantsof Aiolis proper (Lesbos and theadjacent shores of Asia Minor) andtheir speech.12 The use of "Aiolic"to referto a familymade up ofAiolian proper,Thessalian, and Boiotianis a moderncreation by Ahrens in 1839.13 In thisarticle, I use theterm "Lesbian" to referto thedialect of theisland and Asia Minor,"Aiolic" to referto theconventionally accepted family of dialects,and "Aiolian"to referto theconventionally accepted tribes. Cook givesa good statementof the standard argument from linguistics: "Thereis at presentno good groundfor disputing the belief that the Greek citiesof the SouthernAeolis (on theAsiatic mainland) were foundations ofthe Dark Age. In latertimes the dialect of Lesbos and theAeolis borea closeresemblance to Thessalian and Boeotian,and in thefifth century B.C. theAeolians of Lesbos and Cymerecognized a kinshipwith the Boeotians. The new settlersmay well have come mainlyfrom these regions."14
10. This scenariois cited as a Thessaliotis;Thuc. 3.102.5: Aiolis once called Aiolis, but whetherThes- standardexample in linguistictext- located at Kalydon and Pleuron,on the saly,Boiotia, Akhaia, or Aitolia is books; see, e.g., Hock and Joseph 1996, Aitolian coast; Apollod. 1.7.3: Aiolos unclear.All of these seem to be back- pp. 346-365. was king of the regionsabout Thessaly projections.So Meyer (RE I, 1893, 11. Chadwick 1956, pp. 38-39. See and named the inhabitantsAiolians; col. 1030, s.v.Aioles) wrote drylythat Hes. fr.9 MW: "EMtivo; 8' eyevovxo Paus. 10.8.4: the Boiotians,who in "the only people who bore this name
This scenario,however, is not withoutits troubles.Cook also notes thatthe Homeric tradition recognized Greek occupation of Lesbos before theTrojan War.15 His rightlycautious conclusion is thatone cannotas- sumethat the Dark Age migrationswere the firstGreek or Aiolic settle- mentof Lesbos,but only that Greek settlement there is notlikely to have occurredbefore 2300 or after1000 B.C.The two scenarios,however, are neverreconciled. We seem to have Greeks(presumably Aiolic speakers) on Lesbos beforethe Trojan War, but we need a secondmigration from aroundThessaly and Boiotia to people theAsian mainland. In sum,as Rose has shownin the precedingarticle, the case forthis supposedprehistoric migration rests almost entirely on thelinguistic evi- denceof the three dialects, which are thought to be closelyrelated. We have thentwo questions before us: Is thepresence of three related but geograph- icallyseparated dialects best explained by the migrationof speakersfrom theone dialectarea to theother? And are the dialectsin factrelated?
HOW LANGUAGES SPREAD
To answerthe first question, three basic points need to be made: (1) there is no necessaryconnection between population groups and language;(2) thereis no necessaryconnection between material culture and language; (3) thereis no necessaryconnection between changes in languageand changesin population.16 The firsttwo pointsare obvious,if oftenignored. Once theyare ac- cepted,however, we are forcedto statequite firmly that all claimsto link languageto materialculture in prehistoryare formsof specialpleading.17 The thirdpoint deserves a littleelaboration. Before the modern period, all changesin a languageor dialectproceeded from face-to-face encoun- ters.However, mass movementof peoplesover long distancesis not the onlymechanism of such encounters.18A new languageor dialectcan, of course,arrive with new speakersof that language or dialect.This scenario, thatany notion of kinshipin historical 16. See Pejros 1997, pp. 155-156: turesdistinguished by the archaeologist timeswas just an outgrowthof Hesiod's "A directcorrelation between the two and the linguisticgroups distinguished tale of his fathermigrating from Kyme accounts [linguisticand archaeological] by the dialect-historian.There is forin- to Boiotia (and not the otherdirection): is theoreticallyimpossible . . . the sole stance no archaeologicalfeature which Hes. Op. 635-638. link between them is the community can be used as a certaintest for Dorian 15. Hymn.Horn. Ap. 37. Achilles itself.. . . Members of two communities occupation. None the less ..."A com- had sacked Lesbos (//.9.129 = 9.271) can speak the same language(s) yet have mon ploy is to rejectany modernevi- and his booty included a woman bear- totallydifferent material cultures, or dence, on the (oftenunstated and al- ing a Greek name and patrilineage, havingsimilar material cultures they can ways incorrect)grounds that "things Diomede daughterof Phorbas. Inci- speak absolutelydifferent languages. were simplerback then."Once histori- dental characters,however, usually have Change in one characteristicdoes not cal examples are rejected,however, all Greek names (Hainsworth 1993, ad necessarilyimply changes in others." that remainsare unprovableprehistoric loc.) and thereis a Trojan Phorbas as Mallory and Adams (2006, pp. 449- reconstructions.The danger of telling well (//.14.490). Odysseus has a 453) discuss in detail the theoretical ourselves"just-so stories"is clear. wrestlingmatch on Lesbos with a limitationsof what theycall "retrospec- 18. For a theoreticallysophisticated Philomeleides (Od. 4.342-346 = tive"and "prospective"archaeology. discussionof the roles thatboth the 17.133-135). His people are there 17. Crossland 1973, p. 7, is a good "human vector"and the "social vector" contrastedwith the Akhaians and, for example. Cf. Chadwick 1975, p. 815: may have played in the spread of Indo- what it is worth,with the Hellenes by "We must advance warily,for there is European, see Mallory and Adams Hellanikos of Lesbos {FGrHA F10). no directconnexion between the cul- 2006, pp. 456-460. 436 HOLT N. PARKER withthe Roman Empireand the Volkerwanderungenofthe Dark Ages as implicitmodels, underlies most reconstructions of prehistory.Historical linguisticshas longdisplayed a prejudice,even before Max Miillerand his Aryaninvasion, for military invasion as itsprimary model.19 In an importantreview, Nichols distinguishesthree mechanisms by whichlanguages spread: language shift, demographic expansion, and mi- gration.The mechanismsdiffer primarily in thenumber of mobile people involvedin thelanguage spread: Languageshift is normallyin responseto thepresence of at leasta fewinfluential immigrants; demographic expansion involves some absorptionof previous population rather than extermination; and migrationleads to languageshift (either to or fromthe immigrants' language).The termslanguage shifty demographic expansion, and migrationrefer to thepredominant contributor with no claimthat it is exclusive.Almost all literatureon languagespreads assumes, at leastimplicitly, either demographic expansion or migrationas [the] basic mechanism,but in factlanguage shift is the mostconserva- tiveassumption and shouldbe thedefault assumption. There is no reasonto believethat the mechanismof spreadhas anyimpact on thelinguistic geography of the spread.20 This last remarkcan be turnedaround: equally, linguistic geography can offerno informationon the mechanismof language spread. Though a nucleusof people speakinga formof Greek presumably cameto Lesbos fromsomewhere, at sometime, the numbers need not have been largeand theforms of language spread are morevarious than simply one populationdisplacing another. We can use Nichols'soutline to make a fewimportant points. Languageshift. Languages and dialectscan spreadinto a new area withoutany major change in thepopulation. Languages may be replaced in thecourse of only a fewgenerations by the influence of prestige dialects andlanguages, by shifts in territorialboundaries (so theslow loss of Balinese to Bhasa Indonesia),by exchange networks (so therecent spread of Hausa - or theancient spread of Aramaic), or byextensive bilingualism in short, bycultural rather than physical imperialism.21
19. See Chapmanand Hamerow carryingthe target language, has never statement.He citesthe loss of Latin 1997 and Chapman1997 forgeneral createdanything remotely equaling except"in those regions close to the accountsof the rise, fall, and riseof thosevast intercontinental genetic heartof the empire favored for inten- migrationand invasionas preferred groupingsof languages with which we sivesettlement by Latin speakers" modelsin archaeology.For linguistic arehere concerned. . . . Imperialcon- (p. 192). Latin,however, was not"lost," history,see especiallyOlender 1992. questby itself, without large-scale and it simplychanged, and the"heart of the Forthe troubled history of the Aryan permanentsettlement by members of empire"extended from Portugal to invasionhypothesis, see Bryant2001. theconquering population, generally Romania. Warriorsbent on conqueststill seem imposeslittle apart from loan words in 21. See Renfrew1987, pp. 120-144, thebest answer to Schlerath(1981, thelong term. Trade also is generallyof foran accountdirected at archaeolo- p. 199) andMeier-Briigger (2003, p. 68). littlesignificance as a factorbehind gists.Essential reading are the two lit- 20. Nichols1997, p. 372. Bellwood large-scalelanguage spread." Whether eraturereviews of Nichols 1997 (2005,p. 191) claimsthat "historical theseobservations are applicable to the (thoughI putno trustin glottochronol- dataindicate that language shift alone, spreadof Greek or a dialectof Greek ogy)and Bellwood2001 (whois skep- withoutpopulation movement or some acrossthe Aegean is uncertain.His own ticalof all factorsexcept migration; see degreeof dispersal by the population data,in anycase, do notsupport this n. 20, above).For an excellentaccount THE LINGUISTIC CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION 437
Demographicexpansion. Changes in theactual populations of speakers mayoccur without mass migration.Dixon pointsto a numberof known reasonsfor one groupof speakersto fadeor flourish:natural causes, such as drought,flood, earthquake, disease; materialinnovations, such as new tools,weapons, means of transportation,techniques in productionor in agriculture;social causes, such as state formation,changes in hierarchy, revolution,and especiallyreligion; and linguisticfactors, such as prestige and complexity.22 Migration.Even whenlanguage change is associatedwith population change,invasion is not the onlyoption: a new groupof speakersmay ar- riveby peaceful migration or slowinfiltration, and each processmight or mightnot leave traces in thearchaeological record. Further, the new arrivals mightdrive out anyformer inhabitants, live in containedsettlements, or intermarry.23In short, migrations and invasions can anddo occur,sometimes withcatastrophic effects on thepreexisting languages, sometimes with little effectat all,but to presupposemigration or invasion in theabsence of clear historicalor archaeologicaldata is a methodologicalerror.24 Furthermore,we have been talkingprimarily about the spread of language.Dialects withina languageare muchmore likely to developby the spreadof innovations(isoglosses) than by population change. Dialect contactcan, of course,occur by migration(witness, for example, the sud- den arrivalof Anatolian Greek in the mainlandfollowing the population exchangesof the 1920s),but change comes more often in theform of dif- fusionof an innovationin speechfrom larger population centers to smaller ones and thenceto morerural areas (the so-called gravity model), with the extentand rateof changeheavily influenced by "thephenomenon itself, communicationnetworks, distance, time, and socialstructure/'25 In earlierperiods of historicallinguistics, the presenceof a feature deemedcharacteristic of one dialectin anotherwas usuallyexplained by populationmovements. However, as Cowgillwrote optimistically some 40 yearsago, "the realization that innovations can spreadacross existing dialect boundarieshas led to sobererviews of prehistoricmigrations."26 oflanguage spread in Africa,distin- 500 years,noting that "every logically pp. 50-58,for the intellectual history. guishingtrade (which can be accom- possibletype of language spread is Watkins(2001, pp. 48-49), however, plishedby pidgins and simplified"trade attestedin thisarea, all butone in- questionsits applicability to Indo- languages")vs. a cultural"generalized volvingonly hunter-gatherers. In this European:"To speakof punctuation exchange,"see Nettle1996, esp. p. 412. areawe findmigration into unoccupied by'invasion' prejudges the issue rather Forthe influence of prestige dialects, territory,migration with one population severely;the Indo-Europeanization of see Dixon 1997,pp. 22-25, 79-80, replacinganother, and thena number Italyand manyother areas seems to 104-114,145-148. ofspreads with intermingling popula- havetaken place both gradually and in 22. Dixon 1997,pp. 22-24, 75-83. tionsboth with migrators switching to driblets."China provides a woefullab- Forthe spread of Arabic, see Versteegh thelocal language, and with migrators' oratoryof mass migrations and inva- 1997,esp. pp. 71-72,93-98, 102-113. languagesupplanting the local lan- sionsin historicaltimes: the linguistic 23. The Normansoffer a good guage,and finallythere are instances of effectsare surveyed by LaPolla 2001. exampleof a groupwho completely languagesmoving without migration, 25. Wolframand Schilling-Estes replacedtheir language (from Old i.e.,language shift." 2003,p. 727; see theentire article for Norseto Gallo-Romance)within per- Modernconsensus seems to favora an excellentoverview. Hock andJoseph hapstwo generations, with no discern- "punctuatedequilibrium" model, explic- (1996,pp. 346-365) setout the details ibletraces in thearchaeological record. itlybased on Goulds modelof evolu- and problemsof dialect geography 24. Rhodes(2006) studiedthe inter- tionand speciation(e.g., Dixon 1997, clearly,and use "Aiolic"as one oftheir actionsof Cree and Ojibwe-Potawa- pp. 67-86; Aikenvaldand Dixon2001, examples. tomiin theGreat Lakes region over pp. 9-11). See Jandaand Joseph 2003, 26. Cowgill1966, p. 78. 438 HOLT N. PARKER
THE ORIGIN OF AIOLIC
The questionof the "origin"of Aiolic, therefore,is alreadysomewhat misstated.It is closelytied to thequestion of the"coming of the Greeks," whichis in turntied to whereeach scholarpictures an Indo-European Urheimat.21A west-to-east, mainland-to-island, migration theory is largely theunexamined residue of theold "ThreeWave" theory, which views the introductionof Greekas a seriesof migrationsfrom the north into main- land Greece of firstIonians, then "Akhaians" (including the ancestorsof theAiolians), and finallyDorians.28 The exclusivefocus on the mainland leavesthe Greekpresence in northernAnatolia and alongthe coastto be explainedby later population movements, usually in theform of "refugees" fromthe "Dorian Invasion." In truth,we haveno idea wherethe Greeks came from,or evenif that is the properquestion to ask. As Nichols pointsout, the Balkanscan be and havebeen enteredfrom the northwest,that is, CentralEurope (so in historicaltimes, Slovene, Serbo-Croat); from the northeast,the Pontic steppe(so Bulgarian),and fromthe east,Anatolia (so Turkish,and Ro- many).She aptlysummarizes: "For no ancientlanguage of the Balkans do we have evidenceas to whetherit enteredfrom Asia Minor or fromthe steppeto the north.... In short,there is no compellingevidence, either linguisticor archaeological, for bringing Greek to itsattested location either fromthe northor fromAnatolia."29 27. See Mallory1989 foran excel- The Aiolic migrationtheory is based on manyunexamined presup- lentsurvey; also Mallory 1997. For a positions.The historiesof languagespread are vastlymore complicated shorter,more theoretical approach, see andAdams 442- thana successionof invasions,and we can pointto at leastthree different Mallory 2006,pp. 463. See also Schlerath1981 on theo- factorsthat must be determinedin orderto the of the explain presence reticalissues. For historical overviews Lesbian dialectin the northeast the Aegean: originallinguistic situation, criticalof invasion as an a prioriexpla- theprocess of language spread, and thesource of Lesbian.For each factor nation,see Hausler1998 and2003, a numberof possibilities exist. Here we mustadmit that we haveno strong thoughI cannotaccept his conclusion evidencefor any of these. We do notknow the original linguistic situation, thatProto-Indo-European was always the of orwhat form of Greek was first on present,spread over the vast areas process languagespread, spoken in Lesbos and the coast.I thus occupiedby Indo-European speakers adjacent proposethe followingpossibilities historicaltimes. See thecriticisms of forconsideration: Mallory(1989, pp. 254-257). The same of has A. Situation assumption migration/invasion dominatedthe notion of "the coming 1. The earlierinhabitants one or numberof spokeany any ofthe Aryans" (see n. 19,above). So, non-Greeklanguages. They thenadopted some earlierform too,in "thecoming of the Celts"; see of Greek(Proto-Greek) as theirlanguage of choice,which James1999, Collis 2003. Morse(2005, sums evolvedinto Lesbian locally. pp. 179-180) up: "Archaeologists 2. The earlierinhabitants one or numberof arenow debating whether it is useful spokeany any to thatthe Celts in factcame to non-Greek then an evolved say languages.They adopted already Britain If researchinto pre-Roman Lesbian as their languageof choice. Britainwere to startagain from scratch, 3. The earlierinhabitants spoke some otherdialect of Greek. it is hardto imaginethat the term They thenadopted Lesbian as theirdialect of choice. Celticwould play a significantrole." 28. First articulated B. Process.The earlier whatever or clearly by inhabitants,speaking language Kretschmer(1909); see also Chadwick dialect,adopted Lesbian through 1975,pp. 812-817. 1. languageshift, involving a changein a politicalor culturalelite; 29. Nichols1998, pp. 249-250. THE LINGUISTIC CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION 439
2. demographicexpansion through changes in local population groups; 3. migration,colonization, diffusion; 4. invasion. C. Source.The earlierinhabitants, speaking whatever language or dialect,adopted Lesbian, by whatever process, from 1. mainlandGreece across the Aegean; 2. theBalkans across the Dardanelles; 3. inlandAnatolia.
One could easilypoint to otherfactors and possibilities.It is obvious fromthe foregoinglist that,mathematically, we face a minimumof 36 scenarios(Aiolians invade the Troad fromThessaly/Boiotia; Proto-Greek arrivesas a tradelanguage from the north;a new princebrings Lesbian as a courtlanguage from the east,etc.). None of thesescenarios has any linguisticsuperiority over the others. Giventhe difficulties of connectingprehistoric linguistic and archaeo- logicaldata, and giventhe multiplicityof possiblescenarios, Chadwick s pithycomment may serve to sumup: "My ownopinion, advanced with due cautionbut firmly held, is thatthe question, 'Where did theGreeks come from?'is meaningless."30Or, if not meaningless, the question is certainlyill formedand unanswerable.We shouldbe thinkingnot aboutthe coming ofGreeks, but of GreekOur specificquestions are thus when and howdid people firststart speaking Lesbian Greekon Lesbos and the northcoast ofAsia Minor?Our honestanswer to whencan onlybe, sometimebefore 600 B.C.,and the answerto how mustbe, we cannotbe sure.
DATA AND METHODOLOGIES
Our understandingof the relationsbetween the dialectsis complicated by the messynature of the data themselvesand of our analyses.Of the threebranches of Aiolic, Thessalian is traditionallydivided into two main areas,Pelasgiotis and Thessaliotis.At leastfive regions, however, need to be distinguished:Perrhaibia in thenorth; Pelasgiotis and Magnesia in the east;and Thessaliotis and Phthiotisin theWest. Of theseonly Pelasgiotis (principallyLarissa) is at all well attested.It maybe suspectedthat "Thes- salian"itself is merelya convenientcovering term for a numberof different dialectsthat share no commoninnovations. Boiotianis ratherwell attestedboth literarily and epigraphically,but Lesbian is problematic.The fragmentsof Sappho and Alkaios,in addi- tionto sufferingthe ravagesof timeand transmission,were subject to an Alexandrianstandardization. Epigraphically, Lesbian is verypoorly attested beforethe 5th centuryB.C., and mainlandLesbian is knownfrom only a handfulof inscriptionsbefore the 4th century. Interpretationof the linguistic facts on theground is furthermuddied by threefactors: (1) a loose use of termssuch as "borrowing,""mixture," 30.Chadwick 1973, p. 255. "substratum,"and thelike to explaindiffering isoglosses between dialects, 440 HOLT N. PARKER as thougheach dialectvisited a smorgasbordof features;31(2) a loose use of differingtypes of features to groupdialects, so thatphonological, deri- vational,inflectional, and lexicalsimilarities are all throwninto the same hopper;32(3) a loose use of termssuch as "older,""conservative," "innova- tive,""progressive," and so on,which leads to theview that a "conservative" - dialect whichought to meannothing more than one with fewer significant - phonologicalor morphological changes is somehow"older" than a dialect withmore sound changes.This usage in turnleads to the view thatthe "conservative"dialect is thereforeancestral to the"innovative" dialect. This last beliefoften carries with it a furtherunexamined assump- tionthat the "older"dialect must be the one to have stayedhome, while the "innovators"migrated. This notionis centralto the assumptionthat mainlandGreece (Thessaly,Boiotia) mustbe the homelandfrom which Aiolic speakersfanned out to Lesbos and the Troad.33Such a pattern, however,is contradictedby numerousinstances. An obviousexample is AmericanEnglish. Migration was followedby the migrants'language undergoingvarious innovations in isolation,but in factAmerican English is moreconservative than British English in certainfeatures. For example, in phonologyAmerican English has retainedpreconsonantal [r] (lost in standardBritish English) and [ae] in wordssuch asfast, ask, path, dance, and so on. In morphology,American English retains gotten (vs. got,re- tainedonly in ill-gotten),dove (vs. dived),and so on. The same is truefor Icelandicversus Norwegian, and thesituation is commonlyseen in isolated immigrantcommunities (e.g., Amish in the United States,Doukhobors in Canada).34 In tryingto determineancestral relationships among dialects or lan- guages,three important principles should be bornein mind.Dialects and languagescan differin innovations(new sounds and forms),archaisms (sounds and formsretained in some but lost in others),and selections (choicesbetween sounds and forms).35 The firstprinciple is thatonly shared
31. The basicnotion behind invok- proximity.See thestrictures of Rix betweeninnovations, retentions, selec- inga substratumis to attributefeatures (1994,pp. 18-19). Fora detailedcrit- tions,and independentparallel changes. thoughtcharacteristic ofone dialect icismof the explanatory power of sub- 33. See,e.g., Wyatt 1970, p. 627; (forexample, -eaoi dativesin Aiolic) stratain thiscontext, see Hock and MendezDosuna 2007,p. 460. butfound in another(for example, in Joseph1996, pp. 382-387; a pithy 34. Sihler,2000, p. 173:"There is NorthwestGreek) to theinfluence of critiqueby Trask (2000, p. 329); and a nothingmystical about this: innova- thepeople who used to livethere (so case studyof Castilian in Trask 1997, tionsin theisolated group will be lim- Schmitt1977, p. 29). Thus,e.g., an pp.415-429. itedto thosethat arise locally. By con- Arkado-Cypriansubstratum is invoked 32. This is a persistentbad habit. trast,a groupin contactwith other sim- to explainanomalies in Lakonianand See, e.g.,Risch 1955, p. 75,with a chart ilarforms of speech will both make its Cretan(Garcia-Ramon 2002b, of20 randomisoglosses; Wyatt 1970, owninnovations and be influencedby col. 1016).However, substrate effects witha different20 plus29 othersub- changesoriginating elsewhere." Reten- (one populationmoving into another's rulesto arriveat a final25; Finkelberg tionis not,of course, a necessaryfeature areaand "overlaying" the natives) 1994,for a differentset of 20; and ofcolonies; the point is merelythat cannotbe distinguishedfrom borrow- Finkelberg2005, pp. 115-117,with a neitheris "progress."The phrase"colo- ings(populations in contact).Only revisedlist of 21. Coleman(1963) tops niallag" coined by Marckwardt (1958, independentevidence of movement thelist with 51 featuressubjected to a p. 80) has sometimesbeen misapplied; allowsus to determinethe scenario. correlationcoefficient analysis. Each see Gorlach1987;Trudgill 1999. Further,even in casesof contact, ex- authorcombines phonological, deriva- 35. See RodrfguesAdrados 1952 for changemay occur through communica- tional,inflectional, and lexicaldiffer- a clearexplanation; also Karali2007, tionnetworks as wellas geographical ences,and failsto distinguishrigorously p. 389. THE LINGUISTIC CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION 441
innovationsshow any relationship.36Shared archaismscannot point to groupingsnor can differentselections from a commonstock. The point can be made clearby a biologicalanalogy. Both fishand cats retaintheir tailsfrom the ancestralcreatures; humans do not.That is not,however, a reasonto classfish and cats(who sharetails) together rather than cats and humans(who sharethe innovations of being mammals). Further, that dif- feringselections cannot provide a reliableguide to groupingis perhapsone ofthe most often overlooked principles of dialectology. To takea linguistic example,Proto-Indo-European has twowords for 'one': *sem-> the regular ordinaland *oy-probably meaning 'alone' or the like. Greek,Tocharian, and Armenianinherited *sem- (Greek eiq, Tocharian B seyArmenian mek; see below).All otherschose *dy-with various suffixes: Sanskrit *dy-kos > eka;*6y-wos > Avestanaeuuo, Old Persianaiva; *dy-nos> Old Irishden, Latin unus,Gothic ainsyEnglish one. But Greek and Tocharianare not sisterlanguages any more than are Latin and English.Choice fromamong alternativestells us nothing.37 Second,for a sharedinnovation to provideany evidence, the innova- tion mustbe trulyshared, that is, it mustbe genetic.Again, a biological examplecan be provided:both birdsand bats have wings.But a bird's wingsare a completelydifferent innovation than a bats. Just so in dialects or languages,remarkably similar features are oftendue not to the spread of an isogloss,that is, by contact, but by parallel but independent innova- tionswithin each branch. The Second CompensatoryLengthening in Greekis a good exam- ple (Fig.2). Final-ns (and so notsubject to theFirst Compensatory Length- ening,see below), forexample, in accusativeplural tons, stayed as xovq beforevowels, but developed to xo<;before consonants. Older Cretan(the GortynLaw Code, forexample) keeps this distribution, but the xoq forms are generalizedin Thessalian(but not Lesbian or Boiotian) as well as in Arkadian,and withinDoric in Theran, Kyrenaian,and Koan, but not elsewhere.All the otherdialects generalize the tov<; form, which is either
36. So Wyatt(1970, pp. 560-561): ei,ai, r\.The first,ei, is thelocative of 1953,vol. 2, p. 680,n. 1,which alone "In thissearch only shared linguistic thepronominal *e-/o- (cf. elxa): so adequatelyexplains the long alpha; see innovationscan, though they need not, spatially'where,' temporally 'when/ thedifficulties noted by Lejeune 1972, haveevidential value. Shared reten- conditionally'if; ai is thefeminine of p. 232, §374, forthe conventional tionof an archaismis notevidence thesame; r\ 'where/when the old explanationei + av); and ai in ai yap whatsoever."Hainsworth (1982, p. 857) instrumental(Rodrfgues Adrados 1952, keptonly in epicdiction. Another ob- is willingto grantconservation a weak pp. 31-32; Meier-Bnigger1992, vol. 1, viousexample is thedifference, found evidentiaryvalue: "Put together as of p. 67, E 305; Chantraine1999, p. 316, on all theselists (Risch's no. 7 [1955, equalimportance were (a) all mannerof s.v.ei); all haveroughly the semantic p. 75, chart]),of 6-xe (Art., Ion., Myc, innovation,(b) generalizationof certain development'when you do this'-> 'if Ark.,Cyp.) vs. 6-xa (Lesb.,Thes.) inheritedfeatures at theexpense of oth- youdo this.'The differingdistribution vs.ora (Boiot.,Dor.). Yet even within ers,and (c) conservation.These must ofArt. -Ion. and Ark. ei, Aiol. and Dor. Attic-Ionicwe haveArt. ei-xa, ercei-xa, be regardedas ofdescending order of ai, and Cyp.T| has beentaken as an vs.Ion. ei-xe,ercei-xe. The sameholds importance.And sharedinnovation important,ifdisturbing, isogloss forthe modals av, ice,Ka (Rischsno. 6 is indicativeof genetic relation only if (Rischsno. 5 [1955,p. 75, chart];but [1955,p. 75,chart]). All ofthese are it conformsto thegeneral pattern of whydoes Aiolic agree with Doric? varioususes of different pronominal isoglosses." Whydoes Cypriannot agree with adverbsor particles, and eachdialect 37. This problemstill bedevils Arkadian?).Yet, Attic-Ionic inherited selectedone or more.None is a reliable Greekdialectology. For example, Proto- all three:ei themost generalized; r\ basisfor subgrouping. Greekhad a varietyof ways to say'if: withav > ea"v(rightly Schwyzer 1939- 442 HOLT N. PARKER
Figure2. Chartof the Second CompensatoryLengthening retained(as in Argolic)or undergoesthe Second CompensatoryLength- eningto totx;or xcbq,or in Lesbian and Elean changesto zoiq (witha furtherfinal rhotacism in Elean to xoip!).Despite the similarityof result, no dialectspread, isogloss, dialect mixture, substratum, or migration unites Lesbos and Elis.38In short,a numberof thingsthat have been labeled isoglossesare nothingof the kind.They are independentbut parallel innovations. Third,as a corollaryto the above,even genuinely shared innovations maynot alwaysprovide an infallibleguide to preexistingdialect geogra- phy.Sound changesand lexical or morphologicalborrowings between contiguousareas can be blockedby geographical features (e.g., mountain ranges,rivers). Equally so, they can proceedalong a varietyof communica- tionpaths leaving intervening (uninhabited or sparselypopulated) areas relativelyuntouched.39
38. Or Thessalian,Arkadian, and weight.So Hainsworth1982, p. 862: scatteredforms of Doric. Cf. Chadwick "Aeolicappears as a medleyof West 1975,p. 806. and East Greek.... It is thusan early 39. It is a failureto takethese dif- exampleof a bridgedialect." Garcia- feringfactors into account that vitiates Ramon2002b, col. 1016:"Troto- muchof Finkelbergs attempt to recre- Aeolic/which sprang up inThessaly atea Greek"dialect continuum" (1994; and had East- and,in particular, 2005,pp. 109-139).Shared features are West-Greekfeatures, underwent a notnecessarily a good guide to geo- seriesof probably post-Mycenaean graphicalproximity. Talk of"bridge" changesthere and thenspread to dialects,etc., is unhelpfulunless each Boeotia(around 1250) andAeolis individualisogloss is givenits due (around1000)." THE LINGUISTIC CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION 443
THE GREEK DIALECTS
We now turnto the second main questionof this paper:Are Lesbian, Thessalian,and Boiotiandialects related as membersof an Aiolic family? Is theresuch a thingas "Aiolic"at all? Each of thesedialects undergoes manyindependent innovations but there is no reasonto groupany two of themtogether as a highernode on a cladisticstemma. In short,I findno good evidencefor Lesbian, Thessalian, and Boiotianhaving any common ancestorhigher on a stemmathan Proto-Greek itself.40 The pictureis confusedby a numberof conflicting models of how the Greekdialects are related. Cowgill and Schmittgive excellent overviews of thehistory of the problem, which has itsorigins in theoriesthat date well beforethe decipherment of Linear B and thathave left deep furrowsin the literature.41Rischs 1949 and 1955 articlesand Cowgills 1966 workremain fundamentalto a clearunderstanding. The mostimportant fact to emerge is thatthere existed a South Greekdialect group, including Mycenaean, Arkadian,Cyprian, and Attic-Ionic,marked by a veryearly assibilation of both*H as well as of*ty/t(b)y > *ts.42 This assibilationwas sufficientlyearly thatit fedanother change in South Greekof *ts> ss > s (in all positions, even aftershort vowels), thus forminga groupseparate not only from Doric, but also fromLesbian, Thessalian, and Boiotian.Three important pointsshould be made. First,*{t, th] > ts/_ {y, i] is a singlephonological rule.43Second, this early assibilation preceded (bled) thelater Pan-Greek palatalizations,including cases of new or restored *t+y (see below).44Third, Lesbian underwenta laterand entirelyseparate change of *ti > si,but not of*t(*)y > ss > 5.45
40. Ringe (pers. comm.) has per- 42. The South Greek dialect group change took place, and that,from the formeda similarstudy on Arkado- is also called East Greek or sometimes evidence of Mycenaean, must have been Cyprian and found no secure shared Akhaian, but as these termshave been before1200." That is, he is lumping innovations.South Greek appears to used in a varietyof ways,it is betterto Lesbian in with Mycenaean and others. have split,therefore, into fourdifferent adopt Rischs (1955, p. 70) and Cow- However, since Lesbian shows only a > > > dialects:Myc, Ark.,Cyp., and Att.- gill s (1966, pp. 79, 93) label of South change of ti si, and not *t(h)y ss s Ion. Wyatt (1970, p. 627) also doubts Greek. Because of the syllabary,the foundin South Greek,Wyatt (p. 568) the existenceof an Aiolic family.He, Mycenaean evidence is clear only for is forcedinto a contradictorypicture however,sees the dialectsin purelyso- cases of ti > si, showingthe palata- wherebyLesbian is alreadyin Lesbos ciological terms:"Indeed, we nevercan lization and change to -s(s)- but not duringthe Mycenaean period,but also referto Ae[olic] as a whole, and have necessarilyss > s. arrivesin Lesbos afterthe change of > instead alwaysto thinkof L[esbian] 43. Failure to grasp this point,or the *t(h)y ss> s. T[hessalian] B[oiotian] as separateen- use of -ti > -si as a typeof shorthand 44. That is, the change removed tities,L[esbian] a low-class P[roto-] forthe change (e.g., Hainsworth 1982, (bled) sourcesof/ and ththat would G[reek] dialectwhich latermoved into p. 860), can lead to severemisunder- have undergonethe laterpalatalizations. the innovatingsphere of G [reek]; standings.So Wyatt (1970, p. 563; cf. 45. This, again, is usuallyascribed T[hessalian] a low-class P[roto-] p. 566) writes:"Hence -si is an inno- to Ionian influence(e.g., Risch 1955, G[reek] dialectwhich remainedout of vation. It is also clear that this innova- p. 71), as if the Lesbians had asked to touch with the restof the G[reek] tion affectedCyprus, the pre-Dorian borrowa cup of third-personsingulars, world fromthe veryearliest times; Peloponnese,Attica, and the Asia but is in facta regular,new sound B[oiotian], a low-class P[roto-]G[reek] Minor coast. It is not certainthat it change of ti > si in all positionsthat dialectwhich affectedthe conservatism affectedall these areas at the same time, feeds the curious Lesbian treatmentof characteristicof N[orth-]W[est] but the most reasonable hypothesisis the Second CompensatoryLengthen- G[reek]." See also Wyatt 1973, p. 43. that it did. If so, L[esbian] speech was ing; so in third-personplural thematic: > > > 41. Cowgill 1966; Schmitt1977. alreadylocalized on Lesbos when this *-o-nti -onsi -oysi -oiai. 444 HOLT N. PARKER
Some standardexamples are: *tdty-o-s(cf. Lat. tot< tot'i)> *totsos> xoaaoq; but South Greek togo<;,Mycenaean to-so-de (xoaov8e). *Hydty-os> hdtsos (Cretan o£o<;, spelling -ts-\ later oxxoq) > Lesbian ooooq; butAttic and Arkadianoaoq. *kwdty-o-s> *kwdtsos > Lesbian nooooc,(versus Boiotian 6-noixoq, Cretano-rcoxxoq); but South Greeknocoq. *medh-yo-s(cf. Lat. medius)> Proto-Greek*methyos > *metyos > *metsos> Lesbian ueaaoq (versusBoiotian and Cretanjxexxoq); but South Greekueooq, cf. Mycenaean me-sa-ta 'middle quality* = ueo(o)ccxo<;. With original*-ts-: *pod-si > Proto-Greek*potsi > noaci but South GreekkogL * With original-ss-: Proto-Greek genes-si > yeveaai (the analogical sourcethen of the third-declensiondative plural in -eooi) but South Greekyeveai.
Despite our tendencyto thinkin a bifurcatingmanner, such a group impliesnothing about the relationships of the other dialects to each other. A SouthGreek dialect does notimply a unitary"North Greek" dialect or anyother situation.46
AlOLIC WITHIN THE GREEK DlALECTS
The Aiolic dialectfamily is said to be distinguishedby a grabbag of fea- tures.Hainsworth provides a good exampleof the standardlist47 and its jumblednature, quoted here: 1. labialreflexes of kwe,etc. 2. perfectparticiple in -ovx- 3. dativeplural in -eoai 4. geminationof liquidsand nasalsas reflexof -ov-etc. (not Boiotian) 5. ice= uioc 6. patronymicadjective in -ioq It is a muchbetter procedure to takethe lists in thehandbooks, com- binethe significant features, and reorderthem, dealing first with the pho- nological,then morphological, and finallylexical isoglosses. A moreuseful listwould look likethis:
Phonological 1. labialreflexes of kweven before e
2.*r>po/op 46. ContraRisch 1955, p. 71; Chad- wick1956, p. 40; 1975,p. 811;Wyatt Morphological 1970, 626. 3. dative in -eaai p. plural 47. Hainsworth1982, pp. 860-861. 4. perfectparticiple in -cov,-ovx- Forsimilar lists, see Buck1955, p. 147, Scherer Schmitt Lexical/derivational §201; 1959,pp. 4-5; 1977, 121; Garcia-Ramon2002a; = p. 5. i'oc uia 2002b,col. 1014;Mendez Dosuna 6. patronymicadjective in -loq 2007,pp. 461-463. THE LINGUISTIC CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION 445
- Hainsworth'sno. 4 "geminationof liquids and nasals as reflexof -av- - etc," withthe very important qualification "not Boiotian" needsspecial treatment,and is discussedbelow. The problemis thatnone of these is especiallystrong as a case ofshared innovation.Hainsworth notes that the last, use ofthe patronymic adjective, is an archaism.48Inherited from Proto-Greek, indeed Proto-Indo-Euro- pean,it is uselessas evidence.What he,and the authors of many handbooks, failto noteis thatmost of the otherfeatures are archaisms,too. Labiovelars.The default(unconditioned) outcome of the labiovelars (stillunchanged in Mycenaean)in all laterGreek dialectsis to a labial: *kw > py *gw > bf *gwb > *kwh> p* (in linguistic shorthand, Kw > P). Many dialects,however, show a palatalizationof labiovelarsto dentalsbefore e (Kw > T/_ e).49As thehandbooks note, this change does notoccur in Les- bian,Thessalian, and Boiotian.What has notbeen clearlynoted, however, is thatthis change also does notoccur in Arkadian>and Cyprian.50 ForLesbian, Thessalian, and Boiotian,the situation is straightforward: theProto-Greek labiovelars are preserved intact until late, when they simply turninto labials in all environments.Some standardexamples are:
*kw:*penkwe > Attic rcevxe, but Lesbian and ThessalianrceuTie *kV)el->Mycenaean qe-ro-me-no (kweA,6u£voi), Doric, etc.,TeA,-exai, but Lesbian neXexai *kwey-:Mycenaean qe-te-oy *kwoy-neh2 > kowtj, but neioi8iicr|, BoiotianIliaiSdcn (withei > i), AtticTeiai8iKT|, Thessalian a7c-7cei-odTO'o,etc. gw:*gwe/bh- 'hollow/ so AeAxpoi'the hollows/ but BoiotoanBetapoi ForArkadian and Cyprianthe situation is slightlymore complicated. They too kepttheir labiovelars intact, but then each dialectunderwent its ownparticular (and verylate) palatalization and affrication.In Cyprianwe find*kw > ts onlybefore i; so *kwis> tsis,spelled si-se, later ciq (vs. xiq).51 ElsewhereCyprian shows the regularlabial development(even before e)\ future*kwei-s- > iceioei, spelled pe-i-se-i (Art. xeioei). Arkadianalso preserves the labiovelars until its own separate palataliza- tionbefore both high vowels, * and e.The earliestinscriptions used a special signM (a formof san apparently),transcribed s or a, whichspelled only *kw beforefront vowels (i and e)>so osei = o-xcp,siva = xiva,eise = ei'-xe,and so on.52Later spellings such as 6£i<;= oa-xiqshow that this too was somekind ofaffricate, probably ts.53 After these two palatalizations, the surviving labio- velarsin Cyprianand Arkadian,as elsewherein Greek,became labials.54
48. Hainsworth 1982, p. 862. See the odd Thessalian ki<;has been ab- fromthe glosses. also Mendez Dosuna 2007, p. 462. stractedfrom *ou-kwis > *ou-kiswith the 53. Lejeune 1972, pp. 50-52, §§38- 49. We are almost certainlydealing usual loss of the labial co-articulation 40. the dental with a palatalizationbefore front vowels beforeor afteru (cf.*ou-kwid [the unac- 54. Later Arkadian shows > of as well as generally,preceded by an earlypalatali- cented enclitic]*no way' o\>kiHorn, in all forms ogtk;, Ttevxe, zation beforei. The situation,however, [line end] > oi>k). eo-diXX-ovzec,(pdMxo), odekoq. See is due to is complicatedand cannot be discussed 50. Lejeune 1972, p. 47, §34. Schmitt1977, p. 86. This here,but it does not affectthe point. 51. That thiswas a change of inher- influencefrom other dialects (see, e.g., Aiolic sharesthe earlychange of kwi-> ited labiovelarsis shown by the factthat Buck 1955, pp. 174-175), thoughit - xiq (this change is post-Mycenaean it did not apply to inherited/, ky etc. may also representa regulardevelop- - where the labiovelarsare intact but 52. E.g., Mantinea, Buck 1955, ment of the new *ts> t>*dz > d. not sharedwith Arkadian or Cyprian); p. 198, no. 17. The cases of *gwcome 446 HOLT N. PARKER
What we dealingwith, then, is a changethat did notoccur. Lesbian, Thessalian,and Boiotianescaped the palatalizationof labiovelarsbefore frontvowels, as did Arkadianand Cyprian.We can imaginethis palatal- ization as a change spreadingthrough an alreadydifferentiated dialect continuum,affecting Attic-Ionic, Doric, and Pamphylian.Later, all the remaininglabiovelars changed to labials.This, too, we can image as a changespreading through a dialectcontinuum or as a naturalset of inde- pendentinnovations in variousbranches.55 The absenceof the changeis no morereason to groupLesbian, Thessalian, and Boiotiantogether (and add Arkadianand Lesbian) thanthe presence of the change is a reasonto groupAttic-Ionic, Doric, and Pamphyliantogether. *r>po/op. When we reexaminethe changeof *r> po/opwe findthat theevidence is lessoverwhelming than the handbooks make it seem.56For Lesbian thereare onlysix certain forms: 1. Ppo%e(a)(Sappho 31.7 ) < *mrgh-u- 2. auPpoxe(Sappho 5.5) < zero-grade*h2mrt- (cf. *n-h2mert-es- > vrmepxriO 3. auppocmq (Sappho 141.1) < *n-mrt-(cf. Homeric ppoxoq, otuPpoToq) 4. euuopuevov(Alk. 39a.7) < *se-smr-men-on(cf. Att. eiuocpuevov) 5. Pp68ov,and compounds(Sappho 2.6, 53.1, 55.2, 94.13) a bor- rowingfrom Indo-Iranian *wrd- 6. oxpoxov(Sappho 16.1; Alk. 372.1, 382.2), and oxpoxocyoi (7GXII.2 5, etc.);proper names <*str-to- The firstfive all showa labialenvironment, but axpoxov is good evidence fora regulardevelopment of *r> po/op.57 The evidencefor Boiotian and Thessalianis verythin. Boiotian has onlytwo forms: e-aoxpoxet>-a9r| and Ixpox-in propernames, which seems to be good evidencefor a regularchange of *r> po.The otherform is found in theproper names with the root Bpo%-x>XXo<;> etc.,though proper names are alwaysuncertain. There are also onlytwo formscited for Thessalian, and onlyfor East Thessalian at that,which shows Bpo^ix; as a propername and rcexpo- exeipi8a,'period of four years/ Both are in a labialenvironment and so may indicatea conditionedreflex, though we cannotbe sure,and it is doubtful thatTcexpo- really continues an unalteredzero-grade.58
55. The changes in Arkadian and (1957, p. 28, §57.1), Scherer(1959, epigraphicypdqniv, ypdrcxa, etc.). The Cyprian point to the latter. p. 19, §236.1, pp. 54-55, §245, p. 87, formscited fromthe grammariansare 56. For basic accounts,see Lejeune §255.2b), Schmitt(1977, pp. 70, 75, withoutidentification, even if their 1972, pp. 195-198, §§199-202; Sihler 80-81), and othersare eithernot from etymologieswere certain.So Hsch. 1995, pp. 92-96, §§95-98. The original *r,are uncertain,or are phantoms.So k 3669 (Latte): Kopxepd-Kpaxepd, conditionsdetermining *r > po/op inf.Tporcf|v (Alk. 70.9) is not necessarily ia%upd; \i.1679 uopvd|ievo<;-uaxo- probablydepended on root shape and zero-grade aor. (Att. tpotrceTv)but is uevo<;.The sometimes-cited8poaeco<; accent,but the patternhas been so likelyto be fromxpoTceco. So too and 7tTopuo<;are foundonly in the third disturbedby paradigmaticand analog- Poprixai(Sappho 96.17) does not equal anonymousCompendium Kepi SiaXeK- ical levelingin both directionsthat we papeuai, but is from(3opaco built to xcovattributed to JohannesGrammati- cannot recoverthe rules.Further, there popd. yponnaxa (Balbilla) is a hyper- cus (ed. Hoffmann1891-1898, vol. 2, appear to be no good cases of */in Aiolism, and shows the dangersof the pp. 215, 221). Lesbian, Boiotian, or Thessalian. interventionsof the Alexandrian 58. Further,although Jiexpo- might 57. The othercases cited by Hamm regularizes (cf.Alk. 129.27 yeypd.f, continuedirectly a *kwetwr-,the THE LINGUISTIC CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION 447
In sum,the change of *r> po/opis notcompelling, since *r is a rather stablesound in Greek(there are cleartraces of itssurvival in thescansion of Homer), and the same (or at least a similar)change occurs in Arka- dian,Cyprian, and Mycenaean.59As Cowgillnotes: "At most one can say thatthe contrastof op and ccpis not veryimportant for grouping Greek dialects."60To putthe matter differently, V > po/pccis a comparativelylate changein variousGreek dialects.61 Further, there seem to be no cases of *r> po/opfeeding any later sound change shared by Thessalian, Boiotian, and Lesbian. Dative pluralin -eooi. The new dativeplurals in -ecci have caused difficulty.They are foundnot just in Lesbian,Boiotian, and Thessalian, but also in Pamphylian,and in varietiesof Doric (Delphian and Lokrian in the north;Elean in the Peloponnese),plus outcroppingsin Kyrenaian (colonizedfrom Lakonia via Thera) and Corinthiancolonies (but not at Corinth).62Their presencehas been usuallyexplained by an "Aiolicsub- stratum,"which is hardto justifyfor the Peloponnese,more difficult still forPamphylia, and nextto impossiblefor Kyrene.63 In fact,the creation of -eaai dativesis an easyanalogical change that occurs in variousdialects, and as suchis valuelessas a basis forgrouping.64 Perfectparticiple in -cov,-ovr-. A strongercase can be made forthe substitutionof a participleformant in *-o-nt-for the inheritedperfect *-wos-/*-us-ywhich is foundas fullparadigm only in Lesbian,Thessalian, and Boiotian.65This is a bitmysterious, especially since the middle is kept unchanged,with -men- attached directly to the perfectroot. Chantraine attributesit to the influenceof the presentmeaning of the perfect,and certainforms with present endings in literaryDoric and the inflectionof the perfectas a presentin Syracuse,Karpathos, and Knidos are probably due to this.66However, this fact is almostalways misstated, since it is not justthe participle but the perfect infinitive as wellthat is inflectedthe same developmentof -tw- points rather to 60. Cowgill1966, p. 82. 63. Finkelberg(1994, p. 19; 2005, theinfluence of the ordinal *kwetw6res 61. Thereare traces of the *r stage pp. 129-130),the most recent to revive (Skt. catvdras)> *petwores> *petrow-es in Homer://. 16.857: ov rcoxuovyoocooa theidea, makes no mentionof Pam- withthe same metathesis seen in Myc. Aircova'avSpoxfjxa Kai iipr|v,where phylian,Kyrenaian, or Wyatt's 1973 qe-to-wo-reyspelling kwetorwes. Else- Ruijgh(1995, pp. 85-91) andWest article,which effectively demolishes the whereThes. showsonly Ixpaxo- (<*str- (1988,p. 156) areright: the scansion notion. to-)in names.These, however, might be mustreflect *anrtdta> before the epen- 64. See MorpurgoDavies 1976 for dueto Attic/koine influence. The hand- thesisof-nr- > -ndr-,seen already in themechanism. Wyatt 1973, p. 39: bookssometimes cite 'Epoxo-icAiaq Myc.a-di-ri-ja-te = *6tv5pidvxei "Thereis no needto assumean Aeolic (e.g., Sammlungder griechischen Dialekt- '[inscribed]with the figure of a man' substratein orderto explainthe spread Inschriften569.20) and similarforms, <
The answer,therefore, is phonological and thebasic outline was given longago bySchmidt.74 We aredealing with a paradigmthat has been exten- sivelyremodeled. The PIE root*sem (as in Latin semely*som-d-s > 6\ioq) had an originalroot noun paradigm with masculine *sem (extended grade) recharacterizedas *sems,75and a proterokineticdevi feminine,with full-
67. Hodot 1990, p. 159: "Au parfait, aor. -nt- to the perf.part, but only in 71. Garcia-Ramon 1975, p. 65; Tadoptionpour l'infinitifde la finale the ace. sing,and pl. in Tocharian. See Ruijgh 1991, p. 601 (and cf.p. 674). 'thematique'-tiv est correlativede rem- Adams 1981. 72. Chantraine 1999, p. 466, s.v. io<;. ploi du suffixe-ovx- pour le participe." 70. Attestations:Lesb. masc. elq Sihler (1995, p. 405, §389.1Aa) takes 68. Thumb and Kieckers 1932, in [ejia-raiekoiaxos (7GXII.2 82, io<;as built directlyto the pronomial pp. 166, 181, 202, 275-276; Buck 1955, line 17), etc.; fern.ot>8' lav (Sappho stem **-,seen in Lat. is, ea, id. p. 199, §147a; Schmitt1977, p. 48. 56.1; scansion uncertain),uri8eia 73. The single Homeric non- One needs to be preciseabout the dia- (7GXII.2 82, line 12).Thes. fern.ace. feminineform icp (neut.) is an in-house lects in which finiteforms of the per- iav (IG IX.2 6, line 12); neut. ev (SEG creation.See Ruijgh 1991, p. 601. fectare inflectedlike the present,and XXVI 672, line 50). Boiot. masc. ace. 74. Schmidt 1898; see also Gippert those in which the infiniteforms are eva (DialectorumGraecarum Exempla 2004. inflectedlike thematics(presents and 485.43); fern.gen. taq (SEG III 359, 75. Giving us the usual paradigm: aorists). line 10); neut. gen. evo<;(ArchDelt 2, A' masc. nom. *sem-> *sems> *hens(evq by 69. There is a similarspread of the [1916], p. 218, line 34). OstofFs Law) > his (ei<;by the Second THE LINGUISTIC CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION 449
TABLE 1. DEVELOPMENT OF PROTO- INDO-EUROPEAN *sem-ih2 Remodelingand Proto-Indo-European Reduction Proto-Greek Pan-Greek
(nom.)*sem-ih2 *sm-ih2> *smiya uia (gen.) *sm-yeh2s *sm-yeh2s>*syeh2s *syds> *iyds i
grade nominative*sem-ih2 and a zero-gradegenitive *sm-yeh2s. These wereremodeled (with the zero-gradeof the rootgeneralized) as *sm-ih2 and *sm-yeh2s.The nominative*sm-ih2 vocalized to *smiya(the usual de- velopmentin Greek),and thispassed through *hmia to *(m)miato become the familiaru(oc (see below for*sm > mm).76The oblique cases,however, ran into trouble.The initialconsonant cluster of *smyeh2swas simplified by a PIE sound changeto *syehs(and so not subjectto Sievers Law),77 whichthen became Greek*syds. The intervocalicdevelopment of -sy-is to -yy-(*nas-yo- > *nayyo,vocico, *tosyo > xoTo,etc.). We expectan initial *sydsto give*yydsy which would vocalize (following the usual right-to-left iterativerule) as the attestedi&<;, etc.78 The developmentof PIE *sem-ih2 is summarizedin Table 1. Each dialectthen regularized the paradigmof uia, iaq, ia (and so on) in itsown way. Most generalizedthe form of the nominative, creating jiia, uxaq,but Lesbian,Thessalian, and Boiotiangeneralized the oblique,
CompensatoryLengthening). The detailof the inflection of the pronouns: lizationrule (clearly stated by Ringe masc.and neut.,too, have undergone nom.*so/*seh2/*tod> butdat. *tosm-ey/ 2006,pp. 15-16). Further,a hypotheti- paradigmleveling. Myc. shows the ori- *tosy-eh2-ey/*t6sm-ey.As Ringe (2006, cal *yidswould have to be createdfairly ginal-m- of the root, but all otherdia- p. 55) notes:"It has longbeen suspected latewithin Greek itself to escapethe lectshave spread the -n- of the nom. thatthe -sm- of the masc. and neut.sg. usualdevelopment of *y- > C,-(the un- and neut.So gen.*sme's -> *sem-ds> *he- is a reducedform of 'one.'. . . If thatis conditionedoutcome), since h- devel- mos(seen in Myc.e-me = hemeidat.) -> true,it shouldfollow that the syeh2- ops onlyfrom *Hy-. This differenceis bends(evoq); neut. nom. ace. *sem > ev. ofthe fern. sg. forms reflects the corre- notfully understood or incorporatedin 76. Forthe development after CRy spondingfern, of the numeral; the fact mosttreatments. Rix 1992,one ofthe cf.*trih2> xpia; *potn-ih2 (Skt. patnt) > thatthe root-final *-m- has been mostup-to-date handbooks, unfortu- Tcoxvia,*e-kwih2- > e-Tipia-xo (cf. Skt. droppedrather than syllabified might natelyhas thesituation reversed kri-td-).See Peters1980, p. 132,n. 80; thenreflect an earlierpre-PIE phono- (pp.60, 70, §§68, 80); see Peters1976 Gippert2004, p. 162.This is best logicalsystem (in whichcase thisin- fordetails. PIE contains(as farI can viewedas thenormal development flectionwould be veryarchaic), or the find)only one lexemewith *sy-: *syuH- accordingto Siever'sLaw; see Schind- clustermight simply have been reduced 'sew,'Skt. syu-td- 'sewn,' syU-ma 'strap.' ler1977, p. 57; Peters1980, pp. 127- byallegro phonology." Schmidt (1898, In Greekwe havex>\ri\v with rough 132,esp. p. 132,n. 80; Ringe2006, p. 399) did notdirectly tie the formant breathing,but all Greekwords with p. 16. Armenianshows the same to theword for 'one,' but correctly dem- initiald haverough breathing (the rea- changein *smiya> mi'one' (Darms onstratedthe phonology. See also Sze- sonis unclear,but it maybe a regular 1976,p. 13; Peters1980, p. 132,n. 80). merenyi1996, p. 206; Gippert2004, phonologicalchange; Lejeune 1972, 77. ForSiever's Law, see n. 76, esp.pp. 156,161, nn. 6, 22, 25; Hack- pp.280-281, §320; Sihler1995, above.A similarloss of nasal is seenin stein2005, p. 178. p. 173). Here I suspecta lossof y simi- in Vedic and Lat. *h2e'km6'stone' (collective 'sharp') but 78.That is,there is no needto in- larto thatseen sutray that a gen.*h2k-mn-es > Vedic dsman- (stem), vokeLesbian psilosis to explainthe suo>sutusy subula 'awl', is, regular ds'nas(gen.) (Gippert 2004, p. 161,with form.For -sy- > -yy-,see Lejeune1972, development(loss) before u in Greek. references),versus the treatment in pp. 132-133,§127. A developmentof Schmidt(1898) explainedthe initial *dekmt> 8eica, *dekmt-o-s > Semxoq. *yy-to *yi-> *hi-seems ruled out by vowelby the type of epenthesis he This lawhelps account for a puzzling thefact that it violates the usual voca- positedfor io9i, so *syds> *isyds> *iyds. 45O HOLT N. PARKER creatingioc, iaq.79 Again, agreementon paradigmleveling is not good evidencefor subgrouping, since the spread of the ice forms no moreunites Lesbian,Thessalian, and Boiotianthan the spread of the uiocforms unites Attic-Ionic,Pamphylian, and Doric. To sum up so far,Aiolic appearsto be a veryconservative branch of Greek,distinguished primarily for the sound changes it does notundergo. In fact,Aiolic under scrutiny appears less a subfamilythan a relicarea, and Rischcould find no sureisogloss separating Aiolic andWest Greekbefore ca. 1200 B.C.80
Divisions within Aiolic: The First Compensatory Lengthening
We can go further.Rather than a unity,Aiolic is splitby one of the earli- est Greeksound changes, the First Compensatory Lengthening (1CL).81 This is Hainsworth'sno. 4 (see above,p. 444), withthe tellingpoint "not Boiotian,"and thereforea poor candidatefor a definingquality of Aiolic. A properformulation of the FirstCompensatory Lengthening is crucial to understandingthe developmentof the Greekdialects, and so requires a certainamount of space. Those whose eyes glaze over at linguistics (but have stuckwith me so far)may wish to skipthe followingdetailed presentation.The importantfact to be bornein mind is thatthe forms attestedin Lesbian and Thessalianwith double resonants (e.g., Lesbian) representthe original Pan-Greek stage; all otherdialects, including Boiotian, haveundergone a laterchange, the FirstCompensatory Lengthening: so Boiotianand Doric oeA,otva,and Attic-IonicaeA,f|VTi.That is, once again, Lesbianand Thessalian are distinguished not by an innovationbut merely bya failureto undergoa changeseen elsewhere. The presentationsin most handbooksare necessarilyscattered and failto captureseveral general rules. The basic sequenceof eventsin the FirstCompensatory Lengthening was thata resonant+ sys + resonant,or resonant+ y all becamedouble resonants in all dialects,but then in certain dialectsVRR > VR, whichone can view as a compensatorylengthening or a simpleshift of mora/assimilation. More precisely,a vowel is lengthenedas a resultof the simplification of a followingnonpalatal double resonantcluster.82 In brief,VRR > VRy
79. Forthis original paradigm with psilosis)and uux<;then form analogical here.Unfortunately, some of his rules nom.u(ot, gen. ia<;, see Schmidt1898; nominativesict and uia. Lindemanns forthe sound changes are prone to Peters1980, p. 132,n. 80 (crediting Law variantswithin Greek are doubt- error,partially as a resultof the use ofa Eichner);Meier-Briigger 1992, vol. 1, ful,however, and we expectthe PGrk synchronic,generative framework, p. 60; Hackstein2005, pp. 178-179, *sydsto followthe pattern o£*dyiws > whichdoes notdistinguish between who showsthe same development in Zevq, *dyem> Zfiv(a). Proto-Greekand later, dialectical, TocharianA si andTocharian B sana. 80. Risch1955, p. 71. soundchanges. He failsto capturethe This analysisdiffers somewhat from 81. So calledbecause it precedes generalizationof the First Compen- thatof Meier-Briigger (1992, vol. 1, boththe Attic-Ionic change of a > r\, satoryLengthening and hiscom- p. 60) and Gippert(2004, pp. 162- and theSecond Compensatory plexexplanations (pp. 78-79,95-96, 163),who startwith free Lindemanns Lengthening,which applies to new §§108-109) callfor several different Law variantswithin the paradigm (or unchanged)groups of -ns-. The rules,none without their difficulties, *sm-yeh2sI *sm-iyeh2s, which Meier- formulationsofBlumel (1982), as whichin factproduce incorrect forms. Briiggersees as developingto h(i)yds themost comprehensive treatment 82.This formulationof 1CL is based (with *smy> *sy)I *(m)midsyrespec- ofAiolic to date,deserve separate on thatof my teacher Warren Cowgill tively.The resultingia<; (with Lesbian considerationand cannotbe pursued (modifyingKiparsky 1967). Though THE LINGUISTIC CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION 451
Figure3. Chartof the depalataliza- tionof resonant clusters
in cases of mm> m>nn > nyrr > r,// > /,and ww > w, but not in cases of *yyor *IT (whichcomes from*/y and laterdepalatalizes to XXonly after 1CL is over).83This changeis foundin all Greekdialects except Lesbian and Thessalian,which merely retain the Pan-Greek stage.84 There are threesources for these new doubleresonant clusters:
1. *Rs/sR> *hR/RA> RR (eitherby metathesisor simpleassimila- tion). 2. A depalatalized-RR- from-Ry-. For Ry > R'R', whathappens nextdepends on thepreceding vowel. If thevowel is non-high and back (i.e., as unpalatalas possible),namely a or o, then a new diphthongis created:*ann > ayn,*oriri > oynyi.e., *ri merelyloses its nasalityand turnsinto the homorganic resonant y, and theremaining *n is depalatalized.Similarly *arY > ayr> *orY> oyr.But ifthe vowel is highor frontft, ey u)> then R'R! depalatalizes> RR and eitherstays in Thessalianand Lesbian or elsewherefeeds the First Compensatory Lengthening (see Fig. 3). It is importantto notethat these two differingtreat- mentsof R'R' arepresent in all dialectsand so are Pan-Greek.85 Lesbian and Thessalianalone of Greekdialects simply maintain theresulting -RR-, but Boiotianshows the compensatorylong vowels.86 neverfully published, an outlinecan be likelyto reflectthe phonologically cor- 83. *fy> *IT > U in all dialects.So foundin Cowgill1969 and in Crist rectPGrk reflex; so: *e-srew-on> eppeov; too *wyand *sy> *yyin all dialects. 2001,pp. 76-77.The putativecounter- *smeyd-> uei5-idco but (piA,oun.ei8r|<; 84.The statein Mycenaeanis, of examplesare surface clusters of RR, fondof smiles' (Sihler 1995, pp. 170- course,impossible to tell. mostof which are easily explained. 171,§171). The otherclass of puta- 85.This changemakes it clearthat Manyare from the treatment of hR tivecounterexamples would be deriva- stopshad alreadybeen depalatalized in in quasi-initialposition: #sR- > hR- tivessuch as *Ypd(p-n.
3. The thirdsource is thegroup *-ln- (closely related in articulation), whichbecomes -//- (crucially not palatal).87 Note in particular that*-In- > -II- feedingthe First Compensatory Lengthen- ing meansthat the law mustbe formulatedas a reductionof RR and not simpleloss ofsy hy or y. Though some scholars havequestioned the change of */n> -II-y the evidenceis clear.88 Mycenaeannicely attests a stagewhere *-/n- had already assimilatedto -//-(the evidencefor *-rs-y *-ry- is cloudedby the spellingsystem).89 Examplesof the differing outcomes of the First Compensatory Length- eningare forthe first source (sR): -sm- *h1es-mi> *esmi > *ehmi> PGrk emmipreserved in Lesb. ejifii, Thes. euui,but Boiot. euxin the archaicalphabet, Att.-Ion. ejii laterspelled eiui (withthe so-calledspurious diphthong). In Cretanand othertypes of Doric,where e and T|were at the same height,the new longvowels are the same as inheritede and 6 and so spelledf|ui. *ns-'we' (cf.Germ, uns, Eng. us) in ace. *ns-me> *asme> PGrk *amme,preserved in Lesb. aji^ie (withLesb. recessive accent),but Boiot. and Dor. aue. In Att.then *amme > *dme > ♦fine-.90 *smer-'appoint': 0-grade *smor-ya > uoTpoc,pf. *se-smor-e > euuope (Horn,with Lesb. psilosis)but pf. pass. *se-smr-tai> *hehmartai > *hemmartai(RR) > Att.hi2martai (1CL) = duapTai. pf.pass, part.*se-smr-men-on > Lesb. euuopuevov,but Att. eiuapuevov (1CL).91
87. Lejeune1972, pp. 153-154,§152. (Bartonek2003, p. 146). Myc.does not writingsystem. The likeliestexplana- 88. See, e.g.,Sihler 1995, pp. 212- normallyindicate double consonants. tionis thatoriginal signs for rya/Iya, 213, §224.2b.Surface exceptions are Much dependson theinterpretation of and ryo/lyOywhether from primary or due to analogyand later recomposition, thero2 and ra2signs: ro2 spells etymo- secondary*rya (< *riya)>etc., continued e.g.,7uA,-vaui. Slings (1975) providesa logical*ryo in thecomp. a-ro2-a- = to be usedeven when *rya had become clearoverview of the stages. See below aryoa < *aroha< *ar-yos-a(cf. ap-iato<;), -rra-,etc., and so was usedfor new rra forexamples. Not all commonlyoffered etc.,and secondary(syncopated) -ryo- from*rha < *rsa,in a waysimilar to the evidenceis secure,however. The only mpo-pu-ro2= 7cop(p/6p(i)o(;, tu-ro2 = use ofthe Attic "spurious diphthong." formSihler discusses is arr|A,T|,which is rop(i)ov,dim. 'little cheese,' as wellas See Bartonek2003, pp. 105-106,146- usuallytaken as from*stel-/*stl- 'equip,' secondary-lyo- in pi-ti-ro2-we-sa = 147,for the evidence. - so *stl-neh2> *stalnd> Lesb. aiotMxx, ptilyo-we(s)sa(no exampleof primary 90. A good exampleof 1CL preced- Dor. axdXa,Att. (5rr\kr\. Risch (1974, lyo-).ra2 spells etymological *-rya- in ing(feeding) the Att.-Ion. change of a p. 110,§39f) had alreadyderived it mostcases, but spells etymological *-rs- > t|.The newrough breathing seen in from*sth2sleh2 (*stf>2- 'stand'), with the in thefirst aor. = Art.,Boiot., and Doric comesfrom 2. * a-ske-ra2-te*ager-sa- infrequent-sla suffix, seen in Lat. nt-es> agerhantesl*agerrantes (cf. 3. pl. \)ue-.In Att.this *f|ue- is recharac- * *skand-sla> scdla. However, pointing to sing.pres. a-ke-re = ageryeil*agerrei; cf. terizedwith the ace. pl. endingfiue-cx<; *stl-na-is Old Saxonstollo, showing Lesb. dyeppco,but Att. dyeipco). Again, > fjuaq(Sihler 1995, p. 380, §369). boththe zero-grade and an /z-stem. an *agersanteswould be spelledfa-ke- 91. Note thatGrassmann's Law Further,though a connectionwith the sa-nt-esby the usual conventions. The (dissimilationof aspirates) does not rootfor 'stand* is appealing,the ra2sign has beentaken as spellingboth apply,that is, the assimilation *hR > semanticsare less attractive: -sla- rY and rr,but this is unlikely,since not RR precedesGrassmann's Law, which appearsto be an instrumentalformant onlyis a separatesign for double againshows that we arenot dealing ('thatby which one climbs'). consonantsunparalleled in LinearB, withthe mere compensatory loss of h - 89. So o-pe-ro 6(peMxov/6(peAxov, buta signfor rra (Ila, rro,116) necessar- butthe simplification ofdouble sincean *6 -sn- *pbdwes-no-(cf. *phawos > cpdoq> (pcoq)> Lesb. cpdewoq,but Boiot. Odevoq(later Odevvoq, following the Boiot. collapseof the diphthongs),Ark. Oocr|va. " *selas-nd'shiner' > Lesb. aeAxxwa,but Boiot.,Dor. oetaxva, Art.-Ion. G6Xf|VT|.92 -sw- *nas-wo-s'dwelling' (cf. *nas-yo > vaico) > *nawwds> Lesb. vawq, butwith 1CL: Lak. votpoq> Boiot.votoq, Ion. vi\6<;> Art.vecoq (withquantitative metathesis). For -Rs- thereare numerousexamples in j-aorists,futures, and so on: -h- *arjgel-yo> *arjgelTd (in all dialectsand so not 1CL) > dyye^Xcobut firstaor. *ayyeX-aa > Lesb.,Thes. dyYeAAd-uevoq,but Boiot. dyyei^auevcoq,Art. inf. dy/eTAm (1CL withhigh vowel). -ns- *men-sa-> Thes. part.gen. pl. cruu-U£wdvT-oi)v,but Boiot. ueivdxco, Art.eueiv-e. *mens-os:gen. 'month' > Lesb. UT^vv-oq,Thes. ueiw-oq;in the 1CL dialectsthe lengthening applies vacuously to thelong vowel, but theyshow the simplifiedRRy so: Boiot. ueiv-oq,Art. uriv-oq.93 The -nn-forms show that Rs musthave passed at leastto Rh (> RR) beforePan-Greek Ostoff s Law applied. It is especiallyimportant to note herethat the FirstCompensatory Lengtheningis cruciallyordered after the changeof sonant*r > pa. So *tfs-ro-Hon-'possessing fear' > *tfs-ron> *trahron> *trarron> Tpotpcov> TpT|pCOV.94 Forthe second source, Ryy there are many examples in Lesbian(though • fewerattested in Boiotian).For thetreatment after a/o: * *gwm-y6(Lat. venio)> PGrk *gwamy6> gwany6> *gwann6> Pan-Greekpaivco. *smor-ya> *hmorYa > Pan-Greekuoipot.95 * ghr-ye-> *k*ar-ye-> kharYe- > xccipei.96 But aftere: *awer-yo-> *awerYo> Pan-Greek*awerro, which remains in Lesb. deppco,but > Boiot.,Art. deipco (1CL). ' 92. The initiala- is an old and un- > v Figure4. Chartof the First Com- pensatoryLengthening *kten-yo> *kteririo> Pan-Greek ktenno,remains in Lesb. Kievvo),but ktt|vcoDor., KiewtflAtt. (1CL; not attested forBoiot.). Compare afteri: *krin-yo> *kriririo> Pan-Greek krinno,remains in Lesb. Kpiwco > KpivcoAtt. (1CL; not attested forBoiot.). For the third source, -In- clusters,there are excellent examples from inheritedand remodeled nasal presents: PIE *h3bhe'l-'owe' formsa Greek nasal present*opbe/-no- > Lesb. ocpeMxo,but Doric 6(pt|Xco,and Att.-Ion. and Boiot. ocpeiAxo (1CL).97 PIE *gwelh3-'will, wish/ *gwe/o-> *gwole-(a regularmetathesis) in Ark., Cyp., Pamph., and West Ion. p6A,oum;with a nasal infix pres. *gwl-ne-h3-/*gwl-n-h3-> *gw/-no-> remodeled to a full-grade *gwe/no-/*gwolno-on the thematic root present.98This in turn shows the various outcomes of*- In- and labiovelars before e: Lesb. p6M,oum,Thes. peAAouai, with retained -XX-,but Att.- Ion. Pot>A,ouai,Dor. 8r|A,o|iou,and Boiot. peiA,our|(1CL).99 97. See theexcellent summary by phonologicallypossible source would be 98. Forthe shape of the root, see Slings1975. For the initial laryngeal, a suffixin *-se/so-,which is impossible Sihler1995, pp. 498-500, §§453-454; cf.aor. *e-h3bhl-e/o- > © *wel-'roll/ PIE *w/-new/nu-yin Greek with secondary ^-grade *wel-new-> Lesb. eXXeco,but Dor. fr\ke.(oyAtt. ei^eco (1CL);100 cf.the zero-grade *sm-wl-nes- 'rolled together' > Lesb. aoXfoy; ( with*/ > ol and Lesbian psilosis),and thezero-grade adv. in ot^avecoq(Hsch. a 2761 [Latte]).The ^-gradeform &£AAt|<; is attestedat //.3.13 and underlies*sm-wel-nes > *hawelles > *aeikr\q(with 1CL) contractingto Att.aki\q. The sourcesand outcomesof the FirstCompensatory Lengthening are summarizedin Figure4. The Position of Boiotian Explainingthis striking difference as a laterand independentchange of VRR to longvowel plus R withinBoiotian after it splitoff from a Proto- Aiolic cannotwork.101 The examplesof theFirst Compensatory Length- eningin Boiotiancome onlyfrom Proto-Greek -RR- clustersand there 100.Rixetal.2001,p.675. are apparentlyno cases of any secondarysources for double resonants 101. See Garcia-Ramon1975, p. 70, undergoingthis treatment.That is, a laterBoiotian rule should apply who it downto a Boiotian §6.2.1, puts withoutexception, and dtXkoq,for example, should give fa^oq; the new simplificationofgeminates. Although assimilations,such as IlekoKoc-vx\oo<;> Uekonow^Goq, should have given he thechange cannot be dated,he says etc. nonethelessplaces it afterca. 1125,the trietamcbvTiGoq, datehe proposesfor Boiotian splitting Further,since the First CompensatoryLengthening cuts Boiotian offfrom "proto-thessalien" (p. 110). offfrom a putativeAiolic family,all the otherfeatures that are said to 1 can findno ofthe - 102. examples characterizeAiolic thephonological changes of *Kwe > Pin all positions, First CompensatoryLengthening *r> po/op;the morphological innovations of dative plural in -eaai, perfect applyingto *r> po/opin Boiotian(but in -cov,-ovx-, ioc = uia - musthave been and thepo/op forms are very few). participle exceptionallyearly This is not a con- 103.Hainsworth (1982, p. 862) have precededthe FirstCompensatory Lengthening. explainsit bysaying that "the gemina- vincingscenario, and it seems to be ruledout by the fact that the First Com- tionof liquids and nasalswas too late pensatoryLengthening is cruciallyordered after the changeof *f> po/op to affectBoeotian," that is, he takesthe in otherdialects.102 changesof *sn > -nn-,etc., to be a late The conclusionseems to be clearthat Boiotian belongs to a different Lesbian-Thessalianaffair, failing to see thatit is in factProto-Greek. groupof Greek dialects than Lesbian andThessalian, which do notundergo 104.The usualmarker for "West the FirstCompensatory Lengthening.103 No earlyisoglosses separate it Greek"is the1. pl. endingin -ue<;.It is fromWest Greek untilthe innovationof labiovelarsto dentalsbefore e Boiotianshared sometimesstated that marksoff Doric.104 We mayview Boiotian then as a conservativebranch of -uevwith butthe is Lesbian, ending Doric, Boiotianfrom a branch notattested before the ofkoine althoughnothing prevents being separate spread of Greek (Scherer1959, p. 18).Thessalian has altogether. onlya singleexample (-uev), from La- rissa (DialectorumGraecarum Exempla Other Claimed Subgroupings of Aiolic 590.13) datingto 214 b.c. Lesbianat- tests-uev in the understand- poetsbut, The departureof Boiotianleaves just Thessalianand Lesbian. Is it pos- ably,there are no epigraphicexamples. sible thatat least thisgroup somehow forms a family?Again, there are 105. Garcia-Ramon1975, p. 80, no shared and I see no evidencefor Thessalian and basingthe date on thefact that "les securely innovations, itself. archeologistesand les historiens Lesbian havingany common ancestor other than Proto-Greek s'accordentpour dater ca. 1000 la Garcia-Ramon, in themost detailed treatment of thequestion, holds and migrationdite 'eolienne,'" citing thatBoiotian split off from a Proto-Aiolic, which he rathertendentiously 69. Herewe Desborough1972, p. labels and thatabout a laterLesbian migrated see the base "proto-thessalien," century danger:archaeologists There are with this theirdates on thereconstructions of from"thessalo-lesbien."105 problems view,however, and he himself out thatthe lack ofthe First linguists,who base theirdates on the rightlypoints Compensatory reconstructionsofarchaeologists. Lengtheningin Lesbian and Thessalianis not a reasonto groupthe two 456 HOLT N. PARKER togethersince this is merelya retainedarchaism from the Common Greek stageof -RR-.106 As evidenceof a sharedperiod of development, he points to a numberof common new features of greater or lesser importance.107 His bestevidence is the changeof *-ts-> -ss- (e.g., PGrk *metA-yos> *metsos > u£ggo<;)in bothThessalian and Lesbian,versus *-ts- > -tt-in Boiotian (u£TTO<;).However, the group*-ts- is quite stablein the variousdialects, and the same *-ts-> -tt-l-ss-variation is foundin Atticand the Ionic of Euboia and Oropos (vs. the restof Ionic), and in Cretan(vs. otherforms of Doric).108Boiotian innovates by showinga progressiveassimilation of the retained*-ts- > -tt-,but *-ts-> -ss- in Thessalianand in Lesbian is simplya case ofparallel development, the regressive assimilation common in mostGreek,109 and not a sharedinnovation implying an originalunity ofThessalian and Lesbian.110 Garcia-Ramonsother cases are shakierstill. He claims a common developmentof a consonantaly fromi betweenr or afanda vowelin hiatus {riV > ryV)}n First,note thata ruleapplying only to r and d is difficult to motivate.Second, the data showno paralleldevelopments. Lesbian has onlytwo specialcases: 1. diV- > *dyV-> ty-yword initially only, in 8id > £d,and in Aiowuooq > Zowoaoq. These formsare frequentin thepoets, butthe inscriptional form is 8id.112This palatalizationis not uncommonand showsup in Phokaia and Cyprusas well. 2. A limitednumber of cases of ri > ry> rr,but theseare of two ori- gins.One is bylate syncopein thepreverb rcepi-, so rcepi-oxoq> jceppoxoq,*7tep e%oio' (= Att.7tepi-e%oi)oa); the inscriptional form,however, is alwaysrcepl.113 The otheris foundonly in the propername npiocuoq> Ileppauoq (Alk. 42.2, besidea metri- callyconvenient Ilepauoq, Sappho 44.16) and the monthname xS Ayeppavto)ufiwoq (late 3rdcentury) = Aypiavioq.114This pointsto a possiblerule whereby *CriV> *CryV-> (*C9rr'V-> witha palatalr thatthen colors an anaptycticvowel) > CerrV-. In all othercases -ri-is retained.115 106. Garcia-Ramon 1975, pp. 44- *pod-si> fnovtiin Boiotian. It seems names are oftenanomalous and the 46, 69, §§5.3.1, 6.2.1. more likelythat *-t+s-> -ss- is general etymologiesproposed by Heubeck 107. Garcia-Ramon 1975, pp. 81- Greek and then -T-s- was restoredin (1984) and Weiss (1998, pp. 56-61), 91. Boiotian in j-aorists,etc., where it then are not withoutdifficulties. I doubt 108. The -ts- stage is retainedin underwentthe laterBoiotian regressive that the ethnonymis Indo-European. Cretan untilquite late (spelled -£- in assimilationto -tt-. See Garcia-Ramon 111. Garcia-Ramon 1975, p. 82. older inscriptions):Schmitt 1977, p. 52, 1975, p. 84. 112. Also 8id in Sappho 1.12; no.5.M.12. 110. Furthermore,Thessalian is less Sappho vel Alk. SLG S276(l), col. 2, 109. The situationof Boiotian is uniformthan usuallypresented. Garcia- line 17. mp8ia > mp^a is cited by more complicatedthan is commonly Ramon (1975, p. 83) correctlyrules out Etym.Magn. 407.21 as Aiolic (not spe- presented.It is usuallysaid that original the propernames Koxxixpot;,Ooutto*;, cificallyLesbian as sometimesstated), *T+s > -tt-in Boiotian and Cretan etc., as of uncertainetymology. How- but this is of littlevalue. Doric. However,Boiotian shows the ever,the veryname of the Thessalians, 113.Hodotl990,p.l50. Proto-Greekchange of *t-s> -ss in IlexOaXoq(< OeTTaA,6<;,found in Boio- 114. The grammarianscite as Aio- finalposition; so *wanakt-s> *wanakss tian,beside Att. GeoaaXoq, and so indi- lic (again, not specificallyLesbian) > F Thessalian,on the contrary,shows a fullset of doublepalatal conso- nants.The new *-yV-(< -iV-) palatalizesand duplicatesnot onlypreced- ing resonantsbut stopsas well (examplesonly for /, d, n, s, and the rule maybe confinedto dentals),which are thenspelled with or withoutan -1-to indicatethe palatalization. Examples include, for -r(V)y-: KVppov = Kt>ppiov,dpyvppoi (gen. sing.) = dpyupioi);for -l(V)y: noXXioq (gen. sing.) = rcoAaoq;for -t(V)y-: e^amixioi = e^aicooioi;for -d(V)y-: i88iav, vc8iav = i5iav;116for -n(V)y-: Tcpo^evviow = rcpo^evuov;for -s(V)y-: eKKtaiooia ' besideyvuaaaov.117 We clearlyhave a late ruleof [R, T] > {R'R, T T] I _y and thechange is not a sharedinnovation with Lesbian. For sharedmorphological changes, Garcia-Ramon points to datives in -eaai, althoughthis is also Boiotian (and foundelsewhere; see above, p. 447). He rightlyconcludes that this is an innovationin Boiotian,but failsto see thatit thereforecan implynothing about a supposedperiod of sharedchanges in Thessalian and Lesbian.118To thishe adds patronymics in -eioq,adjectives of material in -loq,and theeGriicav type of aorist, though all ofthese are common Greek. Boiotian innovates by showing the spread of the -K-forms to thethird-person plural aorist dv-e-0£i-K-ocv beside the new analogicaldv-e-Ge-ocv, a feature not foundin Lesbian or Thessalian. The mistakeagain is to treata retainedfeature in twodialects as ifit were a sharedinnovation. The athematicconjugation of contract verbs in Lesbianand Thessalian, but not in Boiotian,is sometimesclaimed as a commoncharacteristic.119 Hock and Garcia-Ramon,however, rightly reject it as a sharedinnova- tion.120First, the same pattern is foundin Arkadianand Cyprian;second, theathematic forms are found only in Pelasgiotisbut not inThessaliotis.121 The dataare complicated by a numberof factors,122 but the most important factis thatthe familiarAttic class of contractverbs is a verymixed bag continuingboth athematic and thematicformations.123 For the-dco verbs, theprincipal sources are the following: 1. athematicfactatives in *-h2-built to thematicadjectives, such as *new-e-h2-mi-> ved-co'make new, renew a fieldby plowing'; 2. thematicdenominatives built to a-stem feminines,such as xiudo) to xi|if|. thematic 116. The roughbreathing is anoma- discussionof the forms. could be the resultof regular lous. 122. These are as follows:in the lit- contractions(e.g., apduai could be or 117. See Blumel 1982, pp. 55-56, erarytexts (Sappho and Alkaios), fromathematic apa-uou equally Bliimel's §64, fordetails, though his rule (under (a) the usual vagariesof transmission, fromthematic *&poc-o-uai). 172- §64.4) of -Vrys-> -VrYs > Vss>Vs/_C (b) the tendencyof Hellenistic editors attempt(1982, pp. 76-77, 168, to the is betterexplained by simple syncopa- to impose a uniform"Aiolic" color; in 173, §§88, 182, 187) explain ap- thematic tion followedby assimilation. inscriptions,(c) the paucityof attesta- parently cpi^ei,etc., by regular 118. Garcia-Ramon 1975, p. 84. tion in both Lesbian and Thessalian; in phonological developments(beginning of metathesisof 119. E.g., Buck 1955, p. 148, §202.4. all texts,(d) the formsare verylimited with a type Kiparskys > > > on The data are exhaustivelyexamined by since in Lesbian at least,the 2. sing, -e-ti *-eyt *-ei *-ei) founders in Lesbian Hock (1971); however,the resultsare and 3. sing,have been extensivelyre- inheritedathematic tCBtigi we should and vitiatedby the factthat he believed that modeled so thatwe findcp(X.r|jxi, but (so that expectt There are evenmore sources for -eco verbs: 1. athematicstatives in *-eh2-made to zero-gradeCaland roots,such as *h1rudh-eh2-mi-> ep-oGe-co'be red'; *bhil-eh2-mi> y\to\\i\-> cpiXeco; 2. thematicdenominatives in -e-yo-ybuilt to thematicnominals, suchas *woik-e-yd-> oiiceco; 3. thematiccausative/frequentatives in -eyo-> with the root often in the 0-grade,such as *bhor-eyo-> (popeco; 4. plainthematics built to stemsending in y, wyor s (whichthen disappearsbetween vowels), such as *srew-o-> peco; 5. thematicdenominatives in -yo-built to s-stems, such as *teles-yo- > teleyyo-> xe^eico, later xe^eco.124 In short,all thedialects have ample materials to buildanalogical forms and to regularizethe varying paradigms. Most dialects(including Thes- saliotis)have chosen the more numerous thematics, but Arkadian, Cyprian, Lesbian,and Pelasgiotisshow varying spreads of athematic forms. Lesbian showsinherited statives like 124. Possibleexplanations of KaAico, -eyyo-but simply Attic evepyeTTn;, euep- 1977,p. 76. See above,p. 443,n. 45. etc.,and thepurely Greek -6-© class are Yetecosubjected to thenew patterns. 130. Buck1955, p. 122,§155.1; outsidethe scope of this paper. 127. See, e.g.,Rodrigues Adrados Garcia-Ramon1975, p. 66, §6.1.8; 125. Forthe data, see Blumel1982, 1956. Schmitt1977, p. 77, no. 18. Blumels pp. 172-178,§§187-191, pp. 222-223, 128. Buck1955, p. 148,§204, who attemptto explainaway the thematic §236; Hodot 1990,pp. 192-198. notesthat only one, the thematic inf. in formsis notconvincing (1982, pp. 208- 126. Lesbianevepyei-e-VT-eoai be- -men>"which is Homeric,belongs to 210, §§223-224). sideThes. e\)epYex-e-<;(< *-nt-s) in the theAeolic elements of these dialects"; 131. See thelist in Buck1955, derivedcompound is unlikelyto rep- Schmitt1977, pp. 75-78. p. 122,§153. See Cowgillsclear re- resenta directlyinherited -es-yo- > 129. Cowgill1966, p. 80; Schmitt markson principlesof grouping: 1966, THE LINGUISTIC CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION 459 The bestcandidate for a sharedinnovation is a puzzlingchange con- finedto thethird-person plural verb endings, where 0 showsup in theplace of x, so -v0i for-vxi, -v0co for -vxco, -v0T| for -vxai, and -a0rifor -ocxou.132 Garcia-Ramon assumesthe change is commonAiolic and explainsits absencein Lesbian bythe familiar move of postulating Ionic influence.133 Rather,we clearlyhave a case of analogicalspread, although the locus is uncertain.The usualexplanation dates before both the decipherment of My- cenaeanand therise of laryngeal theory, where a hypotheticalthird-person plural*senti > *henti,which then anomalously threw its aspiration back to createev0i, from which a new -0i endingwas abstracted.134However, no suchform existed. The PIE rootbegan with the ^-coloringlaryngeal and the originalGreek form was *t>1s-enti> *ehenti, nicely attested in Myce- naeane-e-si = efijensi.135Blumel is almostcertainly correct in locatingthe sourcein a secondaryassibilation o(-(n)ti- thatspread by analogyin the verbalsystem.136 It is difficultto assignsuch a secondarypalatalization to a proto-Aiolicstage and theprocess is farfrom uniform in eitherBoiotian orThessalian. This seemsa straightforwardcase ofdialect borrowing, and the same formsare foundin NorthwestGreek at Steirisin Phokis,over thepass throughMt. Parnassos.137 CONCLUSIONS We mightsummarize the linguistic data byarranging the dialects along a linewith the most conservative on theleft and thosewith a greaternumber of significantchanges on theright: Thessalian | Lesbian | Boiotian | Doric | South Greek SouthGreek (Mycenaean, Arkadian, Cyprian, Attic-Ionic) shares the earlyassibilation of ti > si and *t(b)y> ss > sywhile Boiotian, Doric, and the historicaldialects of SouthGreek share the First Compensatory Length- ening.In this lineup,we mightconsider Thessalian and Lesbian to be relatedconservative dialects, but nothingcompels us to thatview. Rather, it mightbe betterto arrangethem in a linecorresponding roughly to their geographicposition in historicaltimes: Thessalian | Boiotian | Doric | South Greek | Lesbian In this arrangement,the two most conservativedialects appear not as relateddialects but rather as relicareas in thefar northwest and thefar northeast.However, no arrangementcan be used withany confidence to reconstructprehistoric dialect geography. p. 83. So, forexample, Attic-Ionic, the 133. Garcia-Ramon(1975, pp. 65- -ueBa,-o0e, but no proportional northernpart of Thessalian, Lokrian 66, §6.1.7) writes:"On hesiteraiten analogycan be made. (NorthwestGreek), Corinthian, Mega- principea rangerce traitparmi les traits 135.For details and further complica- rian,and Rhodian(Doric) all sharethe paneoliens,"noting its absence in Les- tions,see Sihler1995, pp. 548-549, §492. thematicinf. in -e-en,while Arkadian bianand the presence of Phokian forms. 136. Blumel1982, pp. 155-158, and mostof the rest of Doric show-en 134. Schulze1933, p. 399; followed §§171-173. Cf. MeA,dve-io<;beside addeddirectly to thestem. See Sihler byScherer 1959, p. 39, §237.14;Blu- MeA,dvT-ac. 1995,p.608,§552A.l.a. mel1982, p. 156,n. 148; Schmitt1977, 137. Schwyzer1939-1953, vol. 1, 132. Blumel(1982, pp. 155-158, p. 71, no. 15. Garcia-Ramon(1975, p. 353,A.18, 43; Garcia-Ramon1975, §§171-173) surveysthe evidence. p. 65) prefersto see an analogyfrom p. 66. 460 HOLT N. PARKER In conclusion,ascribing the presenceof speakersof Lesbian in the northeastAegean duringhistorical times to themigration of Aiolic tribes frommainland Greece receives no supportfrom linguistics. Migration and invasionare not the onlyor even the mostlikely mechanisms by which languagesand dialectsspread. No solid evidencespeaks for a spread(by whatevermeans) from the Greekmainland to theTroad, rather than the otherway around,or forboth Thessalian and Lesbian arrivingfrom the north,or forboth developing in situ. Furthermore,upon close examination,the idea of an Aiolic dialect groupitself falls apart. Boiotian is an archaicdialect, most closely related to West Greek,which underwent the FirstCompensatory Lengthening but retained*r (withlater independent change of *r> po) and the labio- velars(with the defaultchange to labials),and whichunderwent various laterminor changes of its own. Lesbian and Thessalianare both archaic branchesof Greek that did notundergo the First Compensatory Length- ening.They shareno demonstrablecommon innovations, and nothingar- gues fora relationshipbetween them. They are bestviewed as two relic areasof a relativelyunaltered early Greek. Thessalians,Boiotians, and Aiolians proper (i.e., the inhabitants of Les- 138. Cf.the sensible remarks of bos and the adjacentpart of Asia Minor) werenot partof an Aiolic tribe and Gschnitzercited on 433 or dialect; were various who wereseen to be neither Meyer p. they simply peoples and in n. 7, above.One Dorians norIonians.138 In the absenceof or consequence anyarchaeological linguistic ofthis research is thatthe whole topic evidencefor such a group,we are betteroff avoiding the term"Aiolic" of"Aiolisms" in Homerneeds to be altogether. reexamined. THE LINGUISTIC CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION 461 REFERENCES Adams, D. 1981. "The Pre-Historyof . 1975. "The Prehistoryof the Tocharian PreteriteParticiples," Greek Language," in CAH3 II.2, in Bono Homini Donum: Essaysin Cambridge,pp. 805-819. HistoricalLinguistics in Memoryof Chantraine,P. 1961. Morphologiehisto- J.Alexander Kerns, ed. Y. L. Arbeit- riquedu grec,Paris. man and A. R. Bomhard,Amster- . 1999. Dictionnaireetymologique dam, pp. 17-24. de la languegrecque, Paris. Ahrens,H. 1839-1843. Degraecae lin- Chapman, J. 1997. "The Impact of guae dialectis,2 vols., Gottingen. Modern Invasions and Migrations Aikhenvald,A. Y., and R. M. W. on Archaeological Explanation,"in Dixon, eds. 2001. Areal Diffusion Migrationsand Invasionsin Archaeo- and GeneticInheritance: Problems in logicalExplanation (BAR-IS 664), ComparativeLinguistics, Oxford. ed. J. Chapman and H. Hamerow, Bartonek,A. 2003. Handbuchdes Oxford,pp. 11-20. mykenischenGriechisch, Heidelberg. Chapman, J.,and H. Hamerow. 1997. Beekes, R. S. P. 1969. The Development "On the Move Again: Migrations ofthe Proto-Indo-European Laryn- and Invasions in Archaeological geals in Greek,trans. T. S. Preston, Explanation,"in Migrationsand In- The Hague. vasionsin ArchaeologicalExplanation Bellwood, P. 2001. "Early Agricultural- (BAR-IS 664), ed. J. Chapman and ist Population Diasporas, Farming, H. Hamerow, Oxford,pp. 1-10. Languages, and Genes," Annual Coldstream,J. 2003. GeometricGreece, Review ofAnthropology 30, pp. 181- 900-100 B.C.,2nd ed., London. 207. Coleman, R. 1963. "The Dialect Geog- . 2005. FirstFarmers: The Ori- raphyof Ancient Greece," Transac- gins ofAgricultural Societies, Ox- tionsof the Philological Society, ford. pp.58-126. Blumel,W. 1982. Die aiolischenDia- Collis, J.2003. The Celts:Origins, Myths, lekte:Phonologie und Morphologie der Inventions,Stroud. inschriftlichenTexte aus generativer Cook, J.M. 1975. "Greek Settlement Sicht(Zeitschrift fur vergleichende in the Eastern Aegean and Asia Sprachforschung,Erganzungshefte Minor," in CAW II.2, Cambridge, 30), Gottingen. pp. 773-804. Bryant,E. 2001. The Questfor theOri- Cowgill, W. 1966. "AncientGreek gins ofVedicCulture: The Indo-Aryan Dialectology in the Light of Myce- MigrationDebate, Oxford. naean," in AncientIndo-European Buck, C. D. 1955. The GreekDialects: Dialects,ed. H. Birnbaum and Grammar,Selected Inscriptions, Glos- J. Puhvel, Berkeley,pp. 77-95. sary,2nd ed., Chicago. . 1969. "On Resonant Clusters Cartledge,P., ed. 2002. The Cambridge in Ancient Greek,"Meeting Hand- IllustratedHistory of Ancient Greece, book,44th Meetingof the Linguis- Cambridge. ticSociety of America, pp. 22-26 Chadwick,J. 1956. "The Greek Dia- (abstract). lects and Greek Pre-History,"GaR Crist, S. 2001. "Conspiracyin His- 3, 2nd ser.,pp. 38-50 (repr.in The toricalPhonology" (diss. Univ. of Language and Backgroundof Homer, Pennsylvania). ed. G. S. Kirk,Cambridge 1964, Crossland, R. A. 1973. "Linguisticsand pp. 106-118). Archaeologyin Aegean Prehistory," . 1973. "Discussion" to V. I. in BronzeAge Migrationsin theAe- Georgiev,"The Arrivalof the gean:Archaeological and Linguistic Greeks in Greece: The Linguistic Problemsin GreekPrehistory, Evidence," in BronzeAge Migrations ed. R. A. Crossland and A. Birchall, in theAegean: Archaeological and Lin- London, pp. 5-15. guisticProblems in GreekPrehistory, Darms, G. 1976. "Urindogermanisch ed. R. A. Crossland and A. Birchall, *semi,"Munchener Studien zur London, pp. 254-255. Sprachwissenschaft35, pp. 7-32. 462 HOLT N. PARKER Desborough, V. 1972. The GreekDark in CAW II.2, Cambridge,pp. 678- Ages,London. 712. Dixon, R. M. W. 1997. The Rise and . 1976. Migrationsand Invasions Fall ofLanguages, Cambridge. in Greeceand AdjacentAreas, Park Finkelberg,M. 1994."The Dialect Ridge,NJ. Continuumof Ancient Greek," Hausler, A. 1998. "Archaologie,das //SCP96,pp.l-36. Indogermanenproblemund der . 2005. Greeksand Pre-Greeks: Ursprungder Hellenen," in Die AegeanPrehistory and GreekHeroic Geschichteder hellenischen Sprache Tradition,Cambridge. und Schrift:Vom 2. zum l.Jahrtau- Garcia-Ramon, J. 1975. Les origines sendv. Chr.:Bruch oder Kontinuitat? postmyceniennesdugroupe dialectal ed. N. Dimoudis and A. Kyriatsou- eolien(Minos Suppl. 6), Salamanca. lis, Altenburg,pp. 79-128. . 2002a. "Aeolic (Lesbian)," in . 2003. Nomaden,Indogermanen, Brills New Pauly 1, cols. 231-232. Invasionen:Zur Entstehungeines . 2002b. "Greek Dialects," in Mythos(Orientwissenschaftliche Brills New Pauly 2, cols. 1011-1018. Hefte 5). Halle. Gippert,J. 2004. "Ein Problem der Heubeck, A. 1984. "Zum Volksnamen indogermanischenPronominal- der Thessaler,"in Kleine Schriften flexion,"in Perasperaad asteriscos: zur griechischenSprache undLitera- Studia indogermanicain honorem tur,ed. B. Forssman,S. Koster,and JensElmegdrd Rasmussen (Inns- E. Pohlmann, Erlangen,pp. 306- bruckerBeitrage zur Sprachwissen- 314. schaft112), ed. A. Hyllested et al., Hock, H. 1971. "The So-Called Aeolic Innsbruck,pp. 155-165. Inflectionof the Greek Contract Gorlach, M. 1987. "Colonial Lag? The Verbs"(diss. Yale Univ.). Alleged ConservativeCharacter of Hock, H., and B. D.Joseph. 1996. American English and Other 'Colo- Language History,Language Change, nial' Varieties,"English World-Wide and Language Relationship:An Intro- 8, pp. 41-60. ductionto Historicaland Comparative Grant,M. 1994. Atlas ofClassical His- Linguistics(Trends in Linguistics: tory,5 th ed., Oxford. Studies and Monographs 93), Grote, G. 1888. Historyof Greece, 4th Berlin. ed., 10 vols., London. Hodot R. 1974. "Les noms en -Kpdxris, Gschnitzer,F. 2002. "Aeolians,"in -Kpexrn;,et -Kepxr|<;dans Tonomas- Brill'sNew Pauly 1, cols. 226-230. tique de Lesbos," Beitragezur Hackstein, 0. 2005. "Archaismusoder Namenforschung9, pp. 115-131. historischerSprachkontakt: Zur . 1990. Le dialecteeolien d'Asie: Frage westindogermanisch- La languedes inscriptions,VIIe s. tocharischerKonvergenzen," in a.C.-IVes.p.C.,Vms. Sprachkontaktund Sprachwandel. Hoffmann,0. 1891-1898. Diegriech- Aktender XI. Fachtagungder Indo- ischenDialekte in ihremhistorischen germanischenGesellschaft, 17.-23. Zusammenhangemit den wichtigsten September2000, Halle an derSaale, ihrerQuellen, 3 vols., Gottingen. ed. G. Meiser and O. Hackstein, James,S. 1999. TheAtlantic Celts: Wiesbaden, pp. 169-184. AncientPeople or Modern Invention? Hainsworth,J. B. 1982. "The Greek Madison. Language and the Historical Dia- Janda,R. D., and B. D.Joseph. 2003. lects,"in CAH2 III.l, Cambridge, "On Language, Change, and Lan- - pp. 850-865. guage Change Or, of History, . 1993. The Iliad, a Commentary Linguistics,and Historical Linguis- 3: Books9-12, Cambridge. tics,"in The Handbookof Historical Hamm, E.-M. 1957. Grammatikzu Linguistics,ed. B. D.Joseph and R. D. SapphoundAlkaios (AbhBerl 1951:2), Janda,Maiden, Mass., pp. 2-180. Berlin. Karali,M. 2007. "The Classificationof Hammond, N. G. L. 1975. "The Lit- the Greek Dialects," in A Historyof eraryTradition for the Migrations," AncientGreek: From the Beginnings to THE LINGUISTIC CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION 463 LateAntiquity yed. A.-F. Christidis, Morse,M. A. 2005. How theCelts Came . 1974. Wortbildungderhomer- Cambridge,pp. 387-394. to Britain:Druids, Ancient Skulls, and ischenSprache, 2nd ed.,Berlin. Kiparsky,P. 1967."Sonorant Clusters theBirth of Archaeology, Stroud. Rix, H. 1992. HistorischeGrammatik des in Greek,"Language 43, pp. 619- Nettle,D. 1996."Language Diversity Griechischen:Laut- und Formenlehre, 635. in WestAfrica: An EcologicalAp- 2nd ed.,Darmstadt. Kretschmer,P. 1909. "Zur Geschichte proach,"JAnthArch 15, pp. 403-438. . 1994."Latein und Sabellisch," dergriechischen Dialekte," Glotta 1, Nichols,J. 1997. "Modeling Ancient Incontrilinguistici 17, pp. 13-29. pp. 1-59. PopulationStructures and Move- Rix,H., et al. 2001. LW.Lexikonder LaPolla,R. 2001."The Role ofMigra- mentsin Linguistics,"Annual Re- indogermanischenVerben, 2nd ed., tionand LanguageContact in the viewof Anthropology 26, pp. 359- Wiesbaden. Developmentof the Sino-Tibetan 384. RodriguesAdrados, F. 1952.La dia- LanguageFamily," in Aikhenvald . 1998."The EurasianSpread lectologiagriega como fuente para el and Dixon2001, pp. 224-254. Zone and theIndo-European estudiode las migracionesindoeuropeas Lejeune, M. 1972. Phonetiquehistorique Dispersal," in Archaeologyand Lan- en Grecia,Salamanca. du mycenienet du grecancien, Paris. guage 2: CorrectingArchaeological . 1956."Achaisch, Jonisch, und MalloryJ. P. 1989. In Searchof the Indo- and LinguisticHypotheses, ed. Mykenisch,"IGForsch 62, pp. 240- Europeans:Language, Archaeology, R. Blenchand M. Spriggs,London, 248. and Myth,London. pp.220-266. Rose,C. B. 2008. "SeparatingFact . 1997."The Homelandsof the Nussbaum,A. J.1986. Head andHorn fromFiction in theAiolian Mi- Indo-Europeans,"in Archaeology in Indo-European,Berlin. gration,"Hesperia 11, pp. 399- and Language 1: Theoreticaland Olender,M. 1992. TheLanguages of 430. MethodologicalOrientations, ed. Paradise:Race, Religion,and Philol- Ruijgh,C. J.1991-1996. Scripta minora R. Blenchand M. Spriggs,London, ogyin theNineteenth Century, trans. ad linguamgraecam pertinentia, pp. 93-121. A. Goldhammer,Cambridge, 2 vols.,Amsterdam. Mallory,J. P., and D. Q^ Adams.2006. Mass. . 1995."D'Homere aux origines The OxfordIntroduction to Proto- Pejros,1. 1997."Are Correlations be- proto-myceniennesde la tradition Indo-Europeanand theProto-Indo- tweenArchaeological and Linguis- epique:Analyse dialectologique du European World,Oxford. ticReconstructions Possible?" in langagehomerique, avec un excursus Marckwardt,A. H. 195S.American Archaeologyand Language 1: Theo- surla creationde l'alphabetgrec," English,New York. reticaland MethodologicalOrienta- in HomericQuestions: Essays in Phi- Meier-Briigger,M. 1992. Griechische tions,ed. R. Blenchand M. Spriggs, lology,Ancient History, and Archaeol- Sprachwissenschaft,2 vols., Berlin. London,pp. 147-157. ogy,ed. J. P. Crielaard,Amsterdam, . 2003. Indo-EuropeanLin- Peters,M. 1976."Artisch hlemi," Die pp. 1-96. guistics,trans. C. Gertmenian, Sprache22, pp. 157-161. Scherer,A. 1959. Handbuchder griech- Berlin. . 1980. Untersuchungenzur Ver- ischenDialekte 2, 2nd ed., rev., MendezDosuna, J. 2007. "The Aeolic tretungder indogermanischen Laryn- Heidelberg. Dialects," in A Historyof Ancient gale im Griechischen{SBWien 377)y Schindler,J. 1977. "Notizen zum Sie- Greek:From the Beginnings to Late Vienna. versschenGesetz," Die Sprache23, Antiquity,ed. A.-F. Christidis, Renfrew,C. 1987'. Archaeology and Lan- pp. 56-65. Cambridge,pp. 460-474. guage: The Puzzle ofIndo-European Schlerath,B. 1981."1st ein Raum/Zeit- Morkot, R. 1996. The PenguinHistori- Origins,Cambridge. Modellfur eine rekonstruierte calAtlas ofAncient Greece, London. Rhodes,R. 2006. "OjibweLanguage Sprachemoglich?" Zeitschrift fiir Morpurgo,A. 1968."The Treatmentof Shift:1600-Present," http://lingweb. vergleichendeSprachforschung 95, r and/ in Mycenaeanand Arcado- eva.mpg.de/HunterGathererWork- pp. 175-202. Cyprian,"in Atti e memoriedel T shop2006/participants.html(ac- Schmidt,J. 1898. "Das Zahlwortuia, Congressointernazionale de miceno- cessedJune 24, 2007); 1'a,"Zeitschrift fur vergleichende logia(Incunabula graeca 25), Rome, Ringe, D. 2006. A LinguisticHistory of Sprachforschung36, pp. 391-399. pp. 791-814. English1: FromProto-Indo-Euro- Schmitt,R. 1977.Einfuhrung in die MorpurgoDavies, A. 1976."The -eaai pean to Proto-Germanic,Oxford. griechischenDialekte, Darmstadt. Datives,Aeolic -ss-, and theLesbian Risch,E. 1949."Altgriechische Dialect- Schulze, W. 1933. Kleine Schriften, Poets,"in Studiesin Greek,Italic, and geographie?"MusHelv 6, pp. 9-28. Gottingen. Indo-EuropeanLinguistics Offered to . 1955."Die Gliederungder Schwyzer,E. 1939-1953.Griechische LeonardR. Palmeron theOccasion of griechischenDialekte in neuer Grammatik,4 vols., Munich. His SeventiethBirthday (Innsbrucker Sicht,"MusHelv 12, pp. 61-76 Sihler,A. 1995. New ComparativeGram- Beitragezur Sprachwissenschaft (repr.in The Language and Back- marof Greek and Latin, Oxford. 16),ed. A. MorpurgoDavies and groundof Homer, ed. G. S. Kirk, . 2000. Language History:An W. Meid,Innsbruck, pp. 181-197. Cambridge1964, pp. 90-105). Introduction,Amsterdam. 464 HOLT N. PARKER Slings,R. S. 1975."The Etymologyof Past:'Colonial Lag' and New Zea- West,M. L. 1988."The Riseof the BOYAOMAIand OOEIAQ,"Mnemo- landEvidence for the Phonology GreekEpic," JHS 108,pp. 151- syne28, pp. 1-16. ofNineteenth-Century English," 172. Szemerenyi,0. 1996.Introduction to AmericanSpeech 74, pp. 227-239. Wolfram,W., andN. Schilling-Estes. Indo-EuropeanLinguistics, Oxford. Versteegh,K. 1997. TheArabic Lan- 2003."Dialectology and Linguistic Thumb,A., and E. Kieckers.1932. guage,New York. Diffusion,"in TheHandbook of Handbuchder griechischen Dialekte 1, Watkins,C. 2001. "AnIndo-European HistoricalLinguistics, ed. B. D. 2nd ed.,rev. E. Kieckers,Heidel- LinguisticArea and Its Characteris- Josephand R. D. Janda,Maiden, berg. tics:Ancient Anatolia. Areal Diffu- Mass.,pp. 713-735. Trask,R. L. 1997. TheHistory of sionas a Challengeto theCom- Wyatt,W. E, Jr.1970. "The Prehistory Basque,London. parativeMethod?" in Aikhenvald ofthe Greek Dialects," TAPA 101, . 2000. TheDictionary of His- and Dixon2001, pp. 44-63. pp. 557-632. toricaland ComparativeLinguistics, Weiss,M. 1998."Erotica: On thePre- . 1973."The AeolicSubstrate Edinburgh. historyof Greek Desire," HSCP 98, in thePeloponnese,"^^5 94, Trudgill,P. 1999."A Window on the pp. 31-61. pp. 37-46. HoltN.Parker University of Cincinnati department of classics 4IO BLEGEN LIBRARY CINCINNATI, OHIO 4522I-O226 [email protected]