Greece - Antiquity Age Civilization Discussion

[Zaarin]

I am curious as to what source you have so as to propose that Athens had that name prior to the land belonging to Greek people or that if something existed there it was (comparatively) of note.

I never made that claim. I said that Athena--the goddess--was worshipped in the Balkans before the Greeks came there. We know this because her name is Pre-Greek.

 

[Kyriakos]

But that doesn't imply Athens was already called that before the city we know about in the Mycenaean era. Which you did say:

Considering Athena was a pre-Greek goddess, it's not unreasonable to assume that Athens may have been dedicated to Athena long before the Greeks wandered in from the Eurasian steppe.

Tbf, since you made a synopsis of your post as "I said that Athena--the goddess--was worshipped in the Balkans before the Greeks came there. We know this because her name is Pre-Greek.", you are at least as much at odds with your own post as I am.

I originally chose to not read it as a rather too theoretical "x deity maybe had y place dedicated to it and future people who built a city there cared enough to keep it", as it can't be proven and there's no reason to think it is based on anything.

 

[Zaarin]

But that doesn't imply Athens was already called that before the city we know about in the Mycenaean era. Which you did say:

Your misinterpreting my post. I said it's reasonable to assume the city may have been--and please note the "may have been"--dedicated to Athena. Cult centers are notoriously persistent. E.g., Pumay was worshipped on Cyprus in the form of Adonis long after it was thoroughly Greek. I made no comment at all on what the city was called. My second comment was only "at odds" with your misinterpretation of my original comment.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, I didn't wish to read it as such, because then it becomes (imo) impossibly theoretical and not backed by anything. It's like saying that had Athens been called Poseidonia it was 'maybe' due to Poseidon being tied to the area by pre-Greeks. (I had edited my post to include that interpretation before you posted above)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

From Homer we do know, without a doubt, that Athens both existed with that name, and was a minor town in the domain of Mycenae, so your assumption should conform to those facts.
I am curious as to what source you have so as to propose that Athens had that name prior to the land belonging to Greek people or that if something existed there it was (comparatively) of note.

Historically the start of the rise of Athens is usually dated at the time of Cleisthenes or Solon, both legislators that reformed the local laws. It didn't become a center of philosophy until the time of Socrates (centers before that were all around the Greek world, primarily in Ionia but also in coastal Thrace and Magna Graecia).

My source for 'Athens' or Athene as a Pre-Greek word is from:
Beekes, Robert S., Etymologicval Dictionary of Greek, 2009

Whether the word was applied to the Goddess or the settlement first is, at least as of several years ago, still hotly debated.

The (archeological) evidence of the first Greek speaking inhabitants dates back to before 1400 BCE. By that date, there was a Mycenean fortress on the Acropolis, for which there is still evidence of cylopean walls. But there is additional archeological evidence of habitation going back to 3000 BCE. Unfortunately, I don't know of any evidence as to what language or language family these people may have spoken - they appear to have been pre-literate.

Note that there is little or no evidence e for the kind of destruction in Athens around 1200 BCE that hit Mycenae and Pylos and other major Mycenean centers, and Athenians themselves in the classical era always claimed that they were 'pure Ionian' and the Dorian invasions never touched them. The lack of any trading partners and general collapse of political authority after the 12th century BCE still meant Athens was an economic backwater for at least 150 - 200 years.

The 'rise' of Athens is indeed usually dated at Solon, but note that Solon's reforms were required because Athens already had been a major center of trade for 2-300 years or so and the economic disruption caused by the conflict between 'traditional' wealth from land and wealth from trade was threatening to start a civil war in the polis.

This, at least, is what I was taught in University classes in the late 1960s which covered 'Cleisthenian Democracy in Athens' and 'The Polis in classical Greece'. I confess I have not kept up with current archeological and historical details on the subject once I left school.

 

[Zaarin]

Unfortunately, I don't know of any evidence as to what language or language family these people may have spoken - they appear to have been pre-literate.

The evidence is mixed. The Greek language shows strong evidence of a non-Indo-European substrate that some linguists (including Beekes) have strong opinions about--stronger, perhaps, than is justified by the evidence. Conservatively, we can say that one or more non-Indo-European languages was spoken in the Balkans when the Greeks arrived there and exerted a strong influence on the Greeks, both culturally and linguistically. There is also mounting evidence of an Anatolian substrate in Greek (and that some part of the vocabulary and morphology that was typically described as Pre-Greek may, in fact, be Anatolian).

 

[Kyriakos]

The Athenians in the classical era also claimed they were autochthonous (it's in a very famous speech by Demosthenes, memed by cynic philosophers). I hope we aren't at a tangent where magically the Ionian Greeks are not Greek.
The Peloponnesian war left us, among other things, with the lovely concept of "crimes against Hellenism" (a precursor to crimes against humanity), used by both Athens and Sparta. There are also famous epigrams about fighting Persia, eg "at the forefront of the Hellenes" in Marathon.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The evidence is mixed. The Greek language shows strong evidence of a non-Indo-European substrate that some linguists (including Beekes) have strong opinions about--stronger, perhaps, than is justified by the evidence. Conservatively, we can say that one or more non-Indo-European languages was spoken in the Balkans when the Greeks arrived there and exerted a strong influence on the Greeks, both culturally and linguistically. There is also mounting evidence of an Anatolian substrate in Greek (and that some part of the vocabulary and morphology that was typically described as Pre-Greek may, in fact, be Anatolian).

This makes sense, because we know archeologically and from some of the earliest DNA tracking that an Anatolian population migrated into the Balkans, up the Danube river plains into Europe starting before 6500 BCE, bringing agricultural technologies including dairy cattle with them. At least one archeological site in Serbia shows signs of having a mixed population of hunter-gatherers and farmers, sharing each other's food production means but keeping cultural elements separate. That implies that their languages, one probably 'native European' and one 'Anatolian' based, were also being shared to some extent.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The Athenians in the classical era also claimed they were autochthonous (it's in a very famous speech by Demosthenes, memed by cynic philosophers). I hope we aren't at a tangent where magically the Ionian Greeks are not Greek.

I read it more as meaning that they were 'original' rather than the product of later migration like the Dorians. The Greeks' 'Origin Legend' places the Ionians in the Peloponnesus originally, but the word appears on Linear B tablets from Knossos dated to 1400 - 1200 BCE, which pre-date the first mention in Homer when he apparently refers to men from Athens as 'Iaones' or Ionian.​

​

As usual, it's something of a muddle . . .​

 

[stealth_nsk]

The evidence is mixed. The Greek language shows strong evidence of a non-Indo-European substrate that some linguists (including Beekes) have strong opinions about--stronger, perhaps, than is justified by the evidence. Conservatively, we can say that one or more non-Indo-European languages was spoken in the Balkans when the Greeks arrived there and exerted a strong influence on the Greeks, both culturally and linguistically. There is also mounting evidence of an Anatolian substrate in Greek (and that some part of the vocabulary and morphology that was typically described as Pre-Greek may, in fact, be Anatolian).

Wait, but aren't Anatolian languages Indo-European as well? They were split from main batch before horse domestication by Caucasus glacier, but they still have all the core vocabulary.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

My source for 'Athens' or Athene as a Pre-Greek word is from:
Beekes, Robert S., Etymologicval Dictionary of Greek, 2009

Whether the word was applied to the Goddess or the settlement first is, at least as of several years ago, still hotly debated.

The (archeological) evidence of the first Greek speaking inhabitants dates back to before 1400 BCE. By that date, there was a Mycenean fortress on the Acropolis, for which there is still evidence of cylopean walls. But there is additional archeological evidence of habitation going back to 3000 BCE. Unfortunately, I don't know of any evidence as to what language or language family these people may have spoken - they appear to have been pre-literate.

Note that there is little or no evidence e for the kind of destruction in Athens around 1200 BCE that hit Mycenae and Pylos and other major Mycenean centers, and Athenians themselves in the classical era always claimed that they were 'pure Ionian' and the Dorian invasions never touched them. The lack of any trading partners and general collapse of political authority after the 12th century BCE still meant Athens was an economic backwater for at least 150 - 200 years.

The 'rise' of Athens is indeed usually dated at Solon, but note that Solon's reforms were required because Athens already had been a major center of trade for 2-300 years or so and the economic disruption caused by the conflict between 'traditional' wealth from land and wealth from trade was threatening to start a civil war in the polis.

This, at least, is what I was taught in University classes in the late 1960s which covered 'Cleisthenian Democracy in Athens' and 'The Polis in classical Greece'. I confess I have not kept up with current archeological and historical details on the subject once I left school.

This means ... Solon is the man who invented proto-Democracy? And this means several years after 1000 BC?

And what are Mycenian old gods? same Olympians that passed on to Classical Greeks? and what are Athenian associations with an owl? or is it Greek Tradition to associate an owl with wisdon, a concept that Athena patronizes?

And did Mycenians even have the same Hoplites Classical Greeks did? or even similiarly equipped heavy infantry that was called something else.. like say 'Myrmidon'. ?

 

[Black Gate]

Wait, but aren't Anatolian languages Indo-European as well? They were split from main batch before horse domestication by Caucasus glacier, but they still have all the core vocabulary.

Yes, but there's speculation that on top of an Anatolian substrate related to Luwian (which probably contributed to the Anatolian languages as well) there may be another, pre-Indo-European language substrate in Greek as well. So linguistic exchange with Anatolians, but also Old European "pre-Greek".

 

[Zaarin]

Wait, but aren't Anatolian languages Indo-European as well? They were split from main batch before horse domestication by Caucasus glacier, but they still have all the core vocabulary.

Yes, but there's speculation that on top of an Anatolian substrate related to Luwian (which probably contributed to the Anatolian languages as well) there may be another, pre-Indo-European language substrate in Greek as well. So linguistic exchange with Anatolians, but also Old European "pre-Greek".

Yes, what @Black Gate said. For a long time we knew there was a non-Indo-European substrate in Greek, but recently it's become apparent there was also probably an Anatolian substrate in Greek (in addition to a good handful of later loanwords from Luwian and Hittite).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

But just to confuse the issue even further, a recent study of some 170 words in 161 "Indo-European" languages, including 52 historical/non-modern ones, seems to indicate that the language 'family' originated about 6100 BCE in Mesopotamia/southern Anatolia and spread from there onto the steppes, from which a Secondary expansion 2500 years later brought Indo-European languages to Europe (the Yamnaya migration).

This potentially confuses things immensely, since any Anatolian sub-strate may actually be in two parts: a Proto or early Indo-European component and a Non Indo-European component - both from the same area and possibly from similar populations.

 

[Zaarin]

But just to confuse the issue even further, a recent study of some 170 words in 161 "Indo-European" languages, including 52 historical/non-modern ones, seems to indicate that the language 'family' originated about 6100 BCE in Mesopotamia/southern Anatolia and spread from there onto the steppes, from which a Secondary expansion 2500 years later brought Indo-European languages to Europe (the Yamnaya migration).

This potentially confuses things immensely, since any Anatolian sub-strate may actually be in two parts: a Proto or early Indo-European component and a Non Indo-European component - both from the same area and possibly from similar populations.

The Anatolian hypothesis still has some supporters, but overwhelmingly support has shifted to the Kurgan hypothesis that PIE originated on the Pontic Steppe of north of the Caspian Sea. I believe the main studies supporting the Anatolian hypothesis also had methodological problems.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The Anatolian hypothesis still has some supporters, but overwhelmingly support has shifted to the Kurgan hypothesis that PIE originated on the Pontic Steppe of north of the Caspian Sea. I believe the main studies supporting the Anatolian hypothesis also had methodological problems.

I got my information second-hand, from conversations with my sister who majored in Indo-European Studies at UCLA before getting her PhD in archeology much later. I always understood that the 'Kurgan' hypothesis was the mainstream thought about PIE Origins, since the Yamnaya culture originated in the area north of the Caspian and spread the language family into Europe, and the genetically-near identical Afanasievo migrated to the Altai region and rought pastorialism to the east of the Urals and possibly was the origin of the Tocharian branch of Indo-European family - so the languages can be traced in all directions from a single point (area) of origin between the Pontic steppes and the southern Urals.

 

[Zaarin]

I got my information second-hand, from conversations with my sister who majored in Indo-European Studies at UCLA before getting her PhD in archeology much later. I always understood that the 'Kurgan' hypothesis was the mainstream thought about PIE Origins, since the Yamnaya culture originated in the area north of the Caspian and spread the language family into Europe, and the genetically-near identical Afanasievo migrated to the Altai region and rought pastorialism to the east of the Urals and possibly was the origin of the Tocharian branch of Indo-European family - so the languages can be traced in all directions from a single point (area) of origin between the Pontic steppes and the southern Urals.

Yes, Afanasievo looks like a very promising point of origin for the Tocharians because the extant Tocharian corpus is virtually devoid of Iranian loanwords, which seems improbable if they came from the (thoroughly Iranian) west. I believe that, while the Anatolian hypothesis is not in favor, it is generally well-accepted that Anatolian and Tocharian broke off from PIE very early, leading to a concept of "Late PIE" that is ancestral to all the Indo-European languages except Anatolian and Tocharian. (Though Anatolian and Tocharian aren't closely related, either. Actually, I was reading a study a while back that suggested based on lexical correlations that Tocharian's closest cousin was probably Germanic, which I found interesting--not terribly meaningful as it simply means they happened to inherit similar lexemes, based on our limited knowledge of Tocharian, but interesting.)

 

[j51]

I believe the main studies supporting the Anatolian hypothesis also had methodological problems.

Even the new one Boris mentioned? I remember reading about it recently and being surprised, but it looked on the up and up to my untrained eyes.

 

[Zaarin]

Even the new one Boris mentioned? I remember reading about it recently and being surprised, but it looked on the up and up to my untrained eyes.

Which one? I grant I haven't read any super-recent papers on Indo-European origins, just that the general academic consensus has sided with the Kurgan hypothesis by a landslide over the past couple decades, supported not just by linguistics but also by archaeological and genetic studies. However, my reference to methodological problems was specifically to several studies in the 2000s that used Bayesian analysis and glottochronology, the idea that the rate of linguistic drift of certain core vocabulary is fixed, which is rejected by most linguists (and demonstrably disproven by the existence of certain highly divergent languages like Albanian and Armenian).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Which one? I grant I haven't read any super-recent papers on Indo-European origins, just that the general academic consensus has sided with the Kurgan hypothesis by a landslide over the past couple decades, supported not just by linguistics but also by archaeological and genetic studies. However, my reference to methodological problems was specifically to several studies in the 2000s that used Bayesian analysis and glottochronology, the idea that the rate of linguistic drift of certain core vocabulary is fixed, which is rejected by most linguists (and demonstrably disproven by the existence of certain highly divergent languages like Albanian and Armenian).

This is the latest I could find on the general internet referencing the study I saw in brief in one of my Archeology magazines:

Indo-European languages: new study reconciles two dominant hypotheses about their origin

Using data from over 160 languages, a new study explains where, when and how Indo-European languages spread across Europe and Asia.

theconversation.com

To summarize, this data is from a more recent study done in Germany that referenced a much wider range of linguistic samples. From this article, it appears that the tentative conclusion was that Proto-Indo-European originated about 6000 BCE in the south Caucasus/eastern Anatolia region and from there spread in all directions: west into eastern Anatolia and ultimately Greece and the Balkans, north to the Pontic Steppe from which a secondary spread took it into central Europe several thousand years later, and east into (modern) Iran and India.