BY DIMOSTHENIS VASILOUDIS

The Enigmatic Pre-Greek Substrate: Anatolian and Other Influences

The history of ancient Greece is rich and complex, with layers of influence from various cultures and languages. One of the intriguing mysteries that historians and linguists have grappled with is the pre-Greek substrate, a set of unknown words and toponyms spoken in prehistoric Greece before the emergence of Proto-Greek. In this article, we delve into the enigmatic world of the pre-Greek substrate, exploring its linguistic impact, potential origins, and the challenges it presents to researchers.

Linguistic Landscape

The pre-Greek substrate presents a linguistic puzzle that has intrigued scholars for decades. Through toponymic and lexical evidence, it is widely accepted that one or several languages once thrived in the Greek peninsula and western Asia Minor before the dominance of Mycenaean Greek and the later Anatolian languages like Hittite and Luwian. The reasons for this linguistic diversity are a subject of ongoing debate among scholars.

One of the most significant influences on both Ancient Greek and other Anatolian languages appears to be a language related to Anatolian proto-Luwian. This language left its mark on place names, such as those ending in -ssa and -nda in western Asia Minor and -ssos and -nthos in mainland Greece. Notably, the name "Parnassos" in Greece has been associated with the Luwian word "parna-," meaning 'temple, combined with the possessive suffix '-ssa-' (interpreted as "belonging to the temple."). Early 20th-century scholars like Blegen and Hailey identified a significant number of toponyms in Greece and Western Turkey with non-Greek origins, suggesting a pre-Greek linguistic unity in these areas. Common endings such as -nthos/-ntha and -ssos/-ssa are notable examples. These names often lack meaningful Greek etymologies and may instead reflect characteristics of ancient Aegean languages. The suffix -na, seen in names like Itanos and Praisos, aligns with patterns in Etruscan and other ancient languages such as Hattic, pointing to a widespread pre-Greek presence.

Names ending in -nthos/-ntha are found across mainland Greece, the Cyclades, Crete, and Western Anatolia, further supporting the theory of a non-Greek linguistic substrate. These suffixes, although not directly linked to Mycenaean Greek, have parallels in Anatolian languages, suggesting a complex interaction of linguistic influences.

The most numerous pre-Greek toponyms end in -ssos/-ssa, extending beyond the Aegean to places like Niš in Serbia and Arabissos in Turkey. These endings were used in various ancient languages, indicating a broad cultural and linguistic influence. Examples include Etruscan and Luwian suffixes that conveyed possessive meanings, reflecting a deep-rooted linguistic tradition.

Variations in toponyms, such as those with and without specific suffixes, highlight the assimilation of non-Greek names into Greek. Dual names and complex word formations, like Phalasarna and Alasarna, further illustrate the rich linguistic tapestry of the Aegean region before Greek dominance.

The distribution of these linguistic features suggests that this language was spoken during the Early Helladic II period, dating back to around 2800 BC. However, distinguishing between true "Parnassian" (pre-Greek) loanwords and shared pre-Indo-European substrate words remains a challenge. Some academics contend that pro- or pre-Indo-European settlers from Asia Minor may have brought some of the pre-Greek substrate to Greece.

Tracing the Origins of the Greek Language: From Pre-Greek Substrates to Indo-European Roots

The pre-Greek linguistic substrate has long been a subject of extensive debate among linguists and historians. The beginning was the early work by German philologists Paul Kretschmer and August Fick, who identified non-Greek elements in the Greek language, sparking a discussion about their origins. Kretschmer proposed an Anatolian-Carian origin, which at the time was considered non-Indo-European. This perspective shifted with the discovery and decipherment of Hittite texts by Bedřich Hrozný, revealing the Indo-European nature of the Anatolian languages.

The work of Emil Forrer and Joseph Haley further advanced this field, associating certain suffixes in toponyms with the Luwian language. The geographic distribution of these toponyms suggests a movement from Asia Minor to the Greek mainland. Leonard Palmer and Alfred Heubeck contributed by etymologizing toponyms based on Luwian, like the name Parnassus, interpreted as "belonging to the temple."

Fritz Schachermeyr's research linked pre-Greek toponyms with Neolithic habitation sites, aligning the linguistic evidence with archaeological findings. Colin Renfrew and Robert Drews, who had different perspectives on the spread and development of the Proto-Anatolian and Proto-Indo-European languages, further explored this connection.

Renfrew proposed that Proto-Indo-European speakers, who first brought agriculture to Greece, gradually developed the Greek language. Conversely, Drews hypothesized that Greek migration flows eventually took the place of the Proto-Anatolian language of these early farmers. This discourse reflects the complex interplay of linguistic, archaeological, and genetic evidence in understanding the origins and evolution of the Greek language and its pre-Greek substratum.

The SUPPOSED Arrival of THE Proto-GreekS

The question of the arrival of the Proto-Greeks on the Greek peninsula is a topic that has been extensively debated among historians and archaeologists. The two main theories regarding their arrival are the invasion hypothesis (Dorian invasion) and the cultural transformation or evolution hypothesis. The latter suggests that the Proto-Greek speakers emerged as a result of an evolutionary process within the existing populations of the Greek peninsula rather than as invaders from the north.

Estimates regarding the introduction of Proto-Greek into prehistoric Greece have evolved over time. While many scholars place this transition during the Early Helladic II to Early Helladic III period (c. 2400–2200/2100 BC), some more recent assessments, like John E. Coleman’s, argue for an earlier entry of Proto-Greek speakers into the Greek peninsula, as early as the late 4th millennium BC (c. 3200 BC).

The decipherment of the Linear B script played a crucial role in understanding the arrival of Proto-Greek. Linear B tablets, dating from around 1450 to 1200 BC, provide evidence of an early Greek language. This suggests that the Greek-speaking population had established a presence in the region by the late Bronze Age.

Another perspective emphasizes the role of cultural interaction and gradual assimilation rather than mass migration. According to this view, Proto-Greek may have developed in situ through contact between the indigenous pre-Greek populations and other Indo-European-speaking groups in the same area.

According to this evolutionary hypothesis, interactions between the indigenous populations and the gradual changes in their social, economic, and political structures had a significant impact on the development of the Proto-Greek language and culture. Here are some key assessments supporting this view:

• Linguistic Continuity: The evolutionary theory often cites linguistic evidence. The argument is that Proto-Greek, the ancestor of all Greek dialects, evolved locally from the pre-existing languages spoken in the Balkans and the Aegean region. This is contrasted with the invasion theory, which would imply a more abrupt linguistic shift.

• Archaeological Evidence: The lack of abrupt cultural changes in the archaeological record of the Late Bronze Age in Greece is used to support the evolutionary theory. Instead of evidence of destruction and new settlement indicative of invasions, there is continuity in pottery styles, burial practices, and architectural styles, suggesting a gradual cultural evolution rather than a violent replacement of populations.

• Genetic Studies: Recent genetic studies have shown a significant level of continuity in the DNA of ancient populations in the region (Minoan, Mycenaean, and Western Anatolian). While there is evidence of migrations and minimal genetic influxes from the north, it appears to have been more of a gradual process than a sudden invasion. This genetic blending is still seen as a possible factor in the emergence of Proto-Greek speakers today.

• Socio-Political Changes: Some historians and archaeologists argue that the emergence of Proto-Greek culture and language was a result of internal socio-political changes in the Aegean societies, such as the rise of new political systems, trade networks, and social structures, rather than the result of external invasions.

• Mythological and Literary Sources: While not primary sources for historical events, ancient Greek myths and literature occasionally reflect a sense of deep-rootedness in the land. This cultural continuity is sometimes interpreted as supporting the theory of an evolutionary rather than invasive origin for the Proto-Greeks.

• Comparison with Other Indo-European Languages: The comparison with the development of other Indo-European languages, which frequently demonstrates a pattern of gradual evolution and assimilation rather than abrupt replacement through invasion, also supports the evolutionary theory.

It's important to note that this is a complex and ongoing debate with no definitive conclusion. Both the invasion and evolutionary theories have their strengths and weaknesses, and most contemporary scholars tend to view the arrival of the Proto-Greeks as a result of a combination of both small-scale migration and cultural evolution. The picture that emerges is one of a complex and multi-faceted process of cultural and linguistic development, involving both internal changes and external influences.

Over time, Proto-Greek is believed to have diversified into regional dialects, leading to the emergence of distinct linguistic groups in different parts of Greece. This process likely occurred during the transition from the Early Helladic II to the Early Helladic III period, approximately between 2400 and 2200 BC. As mentioned, the pre-Greek substrate, including linguistic elements from other cultures and languages, may have influenced the development of Proto-Greek. This indicates a degree of interaction and assimilation with pre-existing populations.

Theories of the Pre-Greek Substrate

The theories on the pre-Greek linguistic substrate include:

1. Anatolian substratum: An intriguing aspect of the pre-Greek substrate is its connection to Anatolian languages. Words like "Ἀπόλλων" (Apollo) and "δέπας" (cup) show possible Anatolian or "Parnassian" influence. These loanwords provide tantalizing hints of cultural exchange and linguistic interplay between different regions.

2. Minoan substratum: According to Arthur Evans, it suggests a Minoan (Eteocretan) influence, particularly through Minoan colonization and interactions with Mycenaeans.

3. Tyrrhenian Substratum: Based on Etruscan inscriptions found in Lemnos, it suggests a non-Indo-European Etruscan influence, although the linguistic connection to Greek is minimal.

4. Edzard J. Furnée's Kartvelian Theory links Kartvelian languages to the pre-Greek substrate.

Other substratum theories propose various origins, ranging from Egyptian to Proto-Turkic, but lack significant academic support.

Unlocking the Lexicon

The lexicon of pre-Greek is a treasure trove of words that have found their way into ancient Greek. These loanwords span various domains, including anatomy, animals, architecture, geography, maritime vocabulary, metals and metallurgy, musical instruments, mythology, plants, social practices, theonyms, tools related to agricultural activities, and toponyms or place names. Some notable examples include:

σπόνδυλος (vertebra), κύμβαχος (helmet), ἀψίνθιον (wormwood), ἀράχνη (spider), κῆτος (whale, sea monster), λαβύρινθος (labyrinth), πέτρα (stone), κορυφή (mountain top), ὄχθη (riverbank), θάλασσα (sea), κασσίτερος (tin), χαλκός (copper), λύρα (lyre), σάλπιγξ (trumpet), ἄμπελος (vine), ἐλαία (olive tree), κυπάρισσος (cypress), ϝάναξ/ἄναξ (lord, king),

• Ἀχιλλεύς (Achilles)

• Ὀδυσσεύς (Odysseus)Ἀπόλλων (Apollo)

• Ἄρης (Ares)

• Ἄρτεμις (Artemis)

• Ἀσκληπιός (Asclepius)

• Ἀθήνη (Athena)

• Ἄτλας (Atlas)

• Διόνῡσος (Dionysus)

• Ἑρμῆς (Hermes)

• Ἥφαιστος (Hephaestus)

The occurrence of the Minoan word Labyrinth: Exploring the Links between Minoan and Anatolian Cultures through the Word 'Labrys' and the Carian Sacred Site of Labranda

The double axe, known as "labrys" in Lydian and other western Anatolian languages, has profound roots in the early Neolithic period, notably at Çatal Höyük around 7500 to 5700 BCE. The labrys, linked to bull sacrifices and fertility rites, represent a deeply embedded symbol across ancient civilizations, evolving in significance from Çatal Höyük to the western Anatolian and Minoan civilizations at Knossos, Crete. Here, it was associated with religious practices and rituals, highlighting its continuity and adaptation across the Mediterranean.

In Minoan culture, the labyrinth symbolized complex structures and was associated with divine powers, as seen in the Mycenaean tablet KN Gg 702, which refers to the "mistress of the labyrinth." This ties the labrys directly to leadership centered around sacred spaces. The hypothesis linking the term "labrys" with "labyrinthos" arose from linguistic interpretations of this specific Linear B tablet, which bears the phrase "da-pu2-ri-to-jo, po-ti-ni-ja," rendered as "dabyrinthoio potnia," or "Mistress of the Labyrinth." The linguistic phenomenon where the initial sounds "d" and "l" alternate supports this interpretation. This pattern is also present in other ancient terms, such as the early Hittite royal title Tabarna/Labarna, in which the "t" may phonetically correspond to a "d." Plutarch’s account, noting the use of "labrys" for axe among the Lydians, underscores its linguistic and cultural significance and its adaptation into the concept of the labyrinth.

Labranda, another place name in Caria based on the word labrys, represents a key site in understanding the integration of the labrys symbol, illustrating the adaptation of religious symbols under changing cultural influences. Associated with Zeus Labrandeus, Labranda highlights a shift in religious focus, reflecting the broader religious and cultural shifts as Neolithic Anatolians permeated the Aegean and later Greek influences permeated Anatolia. This transition encapsulates the syncretism between Anatolian, Minoan, and later Greek religious practices.

While the link between the labrys and the labyrinth has sparked scholarly debate, the presence of the labrys across various cultural contexts—Neolithic Çatalhöyük, ceremonial Minoan Crete, and religiously significant Caria—underscores its importance as a symbol in the ancient Mediterranean. This rich tapestry of religious and cultural meanings illustrates the complex interplay of language, symbolism, and cultural exchange that characterized these ancient societies.

The pre-Greek substrate remains a fascinating puzzle in the study of ancient Greece's linguistic and cultural history. While scholars continue to unravel its mysteries, the influence of these forgotten languages on the development of Greek civilization cannot be denied. The pre-Greek substrate is a testament to the complex tapestry of influences that shaped the ancient world, and it reminds us that the past is full of secrets waiting to be uncovered.