Re: [TIED] Re: IE, AA, Nostratic and Ringo

Things seem to have gone very quiet here. I was waiting myself for Glen or
someone else to reply to John's posting of 12th July, but since no-one else
wants to, I will, particularly with regard to pre-Greek.
First, however, just a couple of thoughts about the possibility (or lack
thereof) of early contact between Semitic or Semitish or Afro-Asiatic with
PIE.
I think, John, you're placing too strict a reliance on the archaeological
record. It is far from complete, and even if it were complete, it would
still be too blunt an instrument to analyse the exact linguistic
configuration at such a remote date.
Also I don't agree with your conception of AA. As far as I
know, no-one is proposing (yet) that there was ever a unitary
proto-Afro-Asiatic language. It is rather a hypothetical grouping of six
language families that has been posited based on perceived typological
similarities in phonology and morphology. This "macro-family" is far from
being universally accepted, and even then the similarities could have other
sources than descent from a common proto-language, such as areal phenomena,
convergence or just plain coincidence.

Now, on to your Pre-Greek.
Let's start with the non-Greek element of the Greek lexicon.
Pre-Greek
You consistently use the term "pre-Greek", a term which in my view is an
unwarranted assumption. I would understand from this that you consider the
terminology in question to have been already in existence amongst the native
inhabitants of Greece prior to the arrival of the Greeks. Of course there is
no evidence whatsoever for this assumption as we have no idea what
language(s) was/were spoken there. If you mean the early language(s) of
Anatolia or the Aegean, then of course they are no more "pre-Greek:" than
Norman-French is "pre-English".
So, in order not to prejudice any conclusions, I'll call the non-Greek
element "non-IE". This has the added advantage of eliminating any possible
PIE loans from Semitish (or Caucasic if you prefer), which Greek would have
inherited.

The number of non-IE words
In one place, you quote E.J. Furnee as giving 5 to 6 thousand. I have seen
various numbers given ranging from 25 to 50 per cent. Either way, it is
sizeable, given the antiquity of the Greek texts available. I would be
interested to know, however, whether this number given by E.J.Furnee
includes Greek derivations from non-IE words, such as "kudos" "vile" >
"kudazo" "I revile", based on a Semitic "qds" "unclean, apart".

The nature of the non-IE vocabulary
Here things get very confusing. On the one hand, we have Northern barbarians
picking up a "formidable" number of words from their more civilised
neighbours, and on the other hand, that the bulk of these words were
concerned with Anatolian/Aegean flora and fauna and Neolithic cuisine and
handicrafts.
If the latter were the case, then there would be no need for the "northern
barbarian"-"advanced Aegean civilisation" scenario that has been promulgated
for the last 100 years or so - and still with no real evidence of this
Aegean civilisation.
In fact, the non-IE element of the Greek lexicon pervades all aspects of the
language, in particular objects, concepts and activities concerned with an
advanced civilisation - civil and social administration, the military,
weaponry, religion (myths, buildings and paraphernalia, rites), social
amenities (e.g. baths and drainage), abstract concepts (glory, bravery
etc.), philosophy and the sciences, building (particularly in stone), the
arts, trade and trade goods (gold, ivory, cloth, cereals). In addition to
this is almost the entire repertoire of names of gods and mythological
heroes, as well as toponyms and city names.
The result is that Ancient Greek seems to resemble somewhat medieval
English, in that IE provides the core day-to-day nouns, verbs, pronouns,
prepositions, while just about everything else comes from non-IE sources,
whether it be direct loans, calques or concepts.

The Historical Background
The Coming of the Greeks
The date of the entry of the Greeks into Greece is still very much debated.
I don't see how one can have a C14 (calibrated or not) date for the entry of
a people. I assume this date reflects the EHII/EHIII transition, which some
have seen, in the destruction of the period, as indication of the arrival of
Indo-Europeans.
A much later date of 1900BCE is often put forward. This is based on
the -assos, -inthos place names which are seen to originate in south-west
Anatolia, and on the introduction of grey Minyan ware, which James Mellaart
has associated with the arrival of the so-called "Parnassos folk".
In any event, the arrival and settlement of the Greeks is associated in time
with the increasing poverty of EHIII and the almost neolithic desert of
Middle Helladic - a period of some 500 years.
This Middle Helladic period is really the stumbling block for all theories
based on neolithic or Anatolian substrata to account for the non-IE
vocabulary of Greek. Somehow, one has to get through some 500 years where
this vocabulary of civilisation lies dormant, to be resurrected in Mycenean
times, and no amount of tortuous theories of neolithic pre-IE linguistic
unity, which is in any event highly implausible, can overcome this.
The only real hope lies in Crete.

Minoan Crete and the Eteocretans
So, what language did the Minoans speak? From Antiquity down to Sir Arthur
Evans, the accepted wisdom was that it was Semitic.
The main argument against this is based on the dictum "no break in culture -
no intrusion of new people". While it may be true that a break in the
culture indicates a new people with a new language, the opposite is not
necessarily true. The take-over of Crete by the Mycenean Greeks is a case in
point. The only evidence we have for this event is Linear B and Egyptian
tomb paintings.
There is however evidence of influence from Palestine in the immediate
pre-Minoan phase in the south-east of Crete - Agios Onouphrios ware,
collective burials in caves or tholoi, the stacking of skulls, and the
introduction of bronze working have been seen as evidence of a migration
from Palestine. Others have seen parallels between pre-Minoan Cretan
cultures and the (slightly earlier) Ghassulian culture of Palestine.
Other influences have been discerned emanating from Libya and pre-Dynastic
Egypt, as well as from the Cyclades and the European mainland.
So, given Crete's position as the traditional meeting place between Europe,
Africa and the Middle East (Strabo doesn't locate Crete in the Aegean, but
between Greece and Africa), the survival over 4000 years of the language and
culture of Catal Huyuk doesn't seem very likely.

Greek Contact with Minoan Crete
John wrote (with the entry of the Greeks into the Greek mainland ca2350BCE)
"...there would have been a considerable overlap of Greek and pre-Greek in
Crete and the Islands for nearly a thousand years..."
The Greek language did not arrive in Crete until ca.1450BCE with the
Mycenean take-over. All the cultural flow prior to that date was from Crete
to the mainland. But this in turn only dates back to the establishment of
the Mycenean palaces, ca.1600BCE. Prior that, during the poverty-stricken
Middle Helladic and EHIII phases there was no contact between Greece and
Crete. So, where and under what circumstances did this "overlap" take place?
Given this, it would be more correct to speak of the Cretan influence on
Greece as adstratum rather than substratum.

I've saved the best till last : John wrote (his emphasis) :
"To the east also, some of the Caucasian languages contain words similar to
those of pre-Greek, and Furnee
suggests that *THE NUMBER OF PRE-GREEK WORDS USUALLY EXPLAINED AS SEMITIC
WERE BORROWED BY AND NOT FROM THE SEMITIC*"

I'm assuming from this statement that Caucasian is to be seen as the source
of these words, so several questions present themselves. But first, some
ground rules :
1. the earliest texts in Semitic (Akkadian, Eblaite) date to ca.2500BCE.
Whatever borrowings Semitic had made (and no-one doubts that there were
borrowings), they seem to have been fully incorporated into the Semitic
lexicon by this date. Also, there are no references that I know of to this
enormously influential Caucasian civilisation in the early Semitic texts.
So, the borrowings must have been earlier than the earliest texts, let's say
3000-2800BCE.
2. the earliest Greek texts date to perhaps 14th century BCE, and the
earliest evidence of a Greek-speaking civilisation, the Mycenean palaces,
dates to around 1600BCE, so the borrowings would not be much earlier.
This gap of some 1500 years is important.
So the questions are, in increasing order of implausibility :
1. Did Semitic borrow the words ca.3000BCE, fully incorporate them, and then
pass them on to Greek around 1600BCE?
If so, then my argument stands, that Greek borrowed heavily from Semitic.
The ultimate origin of the Semitic words is irrelevant.
2. Did this Caucasian civilisation loan the words to Semitic and Greek at
the same time?
If so, the Greeks, who were not yet settled in Greece, must have brought the
vocabulary with them, and locked it away in a safe place for more than 1000
years until it was required.
3. Did the Caucasian civilisation loan the words independently to Semitic
and then Greek?
If so, then where is the evidence for such a long-lasting advanced and
influential civilisation in the Caucasus/Anatolia?
4. Is this statement possibly suggesting that Semitic borrowed this
vocabulary from Greek, which got it from Caucasian?
If so, this is just too ridiculous to refute.

It really seems here that the "Out-of-Anatolia" theorists are clutching at
straws, but it is gratifying to note that even they have to admit to the
Semitic appearance of much of the non-IE vocabulary of Greek.
Actually, option no.3 has a valid candidate. There is a long-lasting, highly
advanced and extremely influential civilisation which may well have loaned
words into Greek both independently and via Semitic. I'm thinking of course
of Egypt.

So, let's take Occam's Razor to all these tortuous and strained notions of
neolithic continuities, pre-IE linguistic unities and pre-Greek substrata.
Greek civilisation was founded and formed and was an insignificant part of
the high Bronze Age civilisation of the Mediterranean, dominated militarily,
economically and culturally by the powerful 18th Dynasty of Egypt, and
commercially by the great trading cities of the Levantine coast.
The non-IE aspects of Greek culture and vocabulary, including toponyms, are
for the most part derived from Semitic and Egyptian. This contention can be
supported by the explicit testimony of the classical Greek historians
themselves, by archaeology, by cultural anthropology, and by linguistic
analysis.

Cheers
Dennis