Hello,
for the sake of this discussion I thought you all might be interested in the
Proto-Ionian theories of Jean Faucounau, an independent scholar (and
mathematician) from Luxembourg who has been working on these ideas since the
early seventies, publishing in lots of different periodicals (e.g. Le
Lycien, une langue >proto-indoeuropeenne", in BCL, LXXXII, 1987) and lately
a book where he deciphers the famous Cretan 'Phaistos Disc' as written in
'Proto-Ionian': Le dechiffrement du disque de Phaistos, Paris/Montreal 1999.
My knowledge of Linguistics is not profound enough for any personal
statement to his theories, but as they seem to fit somehow together with
Rex' historical theories, they ought to be mentioned here. I cite, wherever
possible, from different papers the author has made available to me.
His main point is his following Kretschmer (1925) who saw three different
layers of languages in the Mediterranean area: "a) pre-Indoeuropean
(Mediterranean), b) Proto-IE, c) Indo-European strictu sensu. He assigned
the -ss- and -nth- suffixes to the >Proto-IE Stratum< (also called by some:
>Pelasgic<)."
He also sees the possibility that it might be right to combine Renfrew's
(PIE) and Gimbutas' (IE strictu sensu) ideas, leading us to the conclusion
that after a first wave of agricultural expansion from Anatolia in the 7th
mill. B.C. (of PIE speakers), there was another one later (from the end of
the 4th. mill. onwards), "originating from the >Kurgan Culture< (also
tentatively seen as connected PIE with matriarchy and IE strictu sensu with
warlike patriarchy).
He summarizes the late J.T. Hooker's 'The Coming of the Greeks' (reprint of
three papers Claremont 1999) " analyses of the usual theories, and lastly
examines the new light brought to the problem by our 'Proto-Ionian Theory':
When, and in what circumstances, did the first Greek speakers arrive in
Greece? In 1969 Ernst Grumach, believing that the Linear B was not Greek,
advocated that their arrival occured after the Mycenaean political system ha
d come to an end. But even accepting his opinion on Linear B, it is obvious
that such a supposition is contradicted by the facts, in particular by the
Homeric descriptions of actual Mycenaean objects ... In 1987, Colin Renfrew
took a radically opposite view-point, identifying the earliest Indo-European
speakers in Greece with farmers from Anatolia, arrived c. 6000 BC. But this
historical reconstruction cannot explain why Greek is linguistically closer
to Sanskrit than to Hittite or to the other Anatolian languages, when at the
same time words in -ss- or -nd- can be found in Greece and Anatolia ...
Since a few years, the most spread idea has been, therefore, to link the
introduction of the Greek language with the invaders who entered Greece
early in the second millenium BC and introduced the material culture known
conventionally as >Middle Helladic<. But in 1960, J. Caskey showed that
there was no necessary connexion between the destructions at the end of
Eraly Helladic II or III and the Middle Helladic people. In some cases, the
Middle Helladic was clearly the result of an indigenous development.
Moreover, contrarily to what Robert Drews has written, that >the Greek
language and the chariot arrived in Greece at the same time<, the Linear B
data have shown that the Indo European words brought in by the Greeks has
not been >chariot<, but well ippos: >horse<.
The >Proto-Ionian Theory< explains all these facts, when one goes back to
Paul Kretschmer's 1925-ideas concerning a Proto-Indoeuropean stratum",
common to Anatolia and the Aegean, to which has succeeded during the fourth
and third millenia an 'Indo-European (stricto sensu) Stratum", originating
from the >Kurgan Culture< (Marija Gimbutas). The arrival of the first
Greeks, the proto-Ionians. c. 3000 BC in the Aegean is in agreement with
this chronology. It solves most of the linguistical problems. And one can
also notice that this >historical reconstruction< that we have proposed
concerning >the Coming of the Greeks< is in accordance with the statements
of all the ancient writers, like Herodotus, Pausanias or Strabo."
In another paper Faucounau gives 'The historical-linguistical Scenario
concerning the formation of the Ionic Dialects /.../ to be the following:
c. 3000 BC the >first Greeks<, i.e. the proto-Ionians, coming by sea
from the Danubian area, settled at Troy, and a few centuries later in the
Cycladic islands and in some areas of the Greek coast (Attica and Euboea in
particular).
c. 2300/2200 BC: At the end of the Early Bronze Age period and for badly
known reasons, the >Troyano-Cycladic Civilization< disappears. Proto-Ionians
are split in different ethnies, which will each follow, archaeologically and
linguistically, a separate destiny.
The >proto-Ionic language of the Disk< /meaning the Phaistos disc/ is
just one of these linguistical evolutions. Being spoken c. 1800 BC, it
cannot be the ancestor of the known Ionic dialects. This 'ancestor' has to
be earlier than 2200/2300 BC, and it was somewhat less evolved (For
instance: retaining the _digamma_, but knowing already the transformation of
_a_ into _ae_)
c. 1100 BC: The Ionian Migration brings Attic-speaking people in/to?/
the islands and in /to?/ Anatolia, where they will mingle with the
subsisting 'Old proto-Ionians'. The language of the first settlers will
produce a _subtratum-phenomenon_ (with the introduction of forms like hom.
_pais_ v. Attic _paus_ for instance), _mainly perceptible in the Homeric
Epic_."
Faucounau also believes (several dialects of) Carian and Etruscan to
possibly belong to this PIE stratum, also criticizing the _communis opinio_
of Etruscan numbers (mentioned by Glen), arguing with a new reading
(reconstructing the maker's moves) of the 'Dice of Tuscany', that "montre
que la sequence des nombres etrusces est celle qui fut proposee jadis par V.
Pisani: _makh, thu, ci, huth, tsa, zal_, sequence qui est compatible /.../
avec le caractere proto-indoeuropeen de l'etrusque."
I'll send this mail to Faucounau also and invite him to join the discussion
personally.
Best wishes from Crete
Sabine Ivanovas