HESPERIA JJ (2OO8)

Pages43I~4^4

THE LINGUISTIC
CASE FOR THE
AIOLIAN MIGRATION
RECONSIDERED

ABSTRACT
thepresenceofspeakersofLesbianin thenortheast
AegeandurAscribing
from
mainland
times
to
the
of
Aiolian
tribes
Greece
historical
migration
ing
is
not
or
even
from
the
receives
nosupport
Migration
only
primary
linguistics.
wayin whichlanguagesand dialectsmayspread.Moreover,on reexamination,theideaofanAiolicdialectgroupfallsapart.Boiotian,separated
bythe
and
from
Lesbian
FirstCompensatory
Thessalian,appearsas
Lengthening
a conservative
dialect,mostcloselyrelatedto WestGreek.In turn,Lesbian
ofGreekthatsharenodemonstrable
andThessalianarebotharchaicbranches
best
viewed
as twoseparaterelicareasofa
are
commoninnovations.
They
Greek.
unaltered
early
relatively
world- an aggregateof streamsdisTo pass fromthislegendary
comeintoconfluwhichdo notwillingly
tinctand heterogeneous,
intermix
into
the
visionafforded
forced
to
cannot
be
and
ence,
in
the
500s
B.C.thewhole
byHerodotus,we learnfromhimthat
of
fromDardanussouthwardto thepromontory
coast-region
Lektum(includingthetownofIlium),and fromLektumeastward
had beenAeolised,orwas occupiedbyAeolic
to Adramyttium,
Greeks likewisetheinlandtownsof Skepsisand Kebren.1
This papergrewout of theresearchof BrianRose, as setout in theprecedingarticlein thisissueofHesperia?As head of thepost-BronzeAge
excavationsat Troy,Rose had long acceptedthe scholarlyconsensusin
1. Grote 1888, vol. 1, p. 305, referringto Hdt. 1.149-151.
2. Rose 2008. My thanksare due to
Brian Rose, Don Ringe, Ronald Kim,
and the anonymousreviewersforHesperia fordiscussionand clarifications.
Certain conventionsand abbreviationscommon in historicallinguistics
*
are used in this article.An asterisk
marksan unattestedor reconstructed
form.A daggert marksa formthatwe
The American School of Classical

mightexpectfromthe rulesbut does

not occur.The sign > means "develops
to" (and the sign < means "develops
from")an earlierformby regularsound
changes.The sign -> means "is replaced
by,"i.e., develops froman earlierform
by analogy,replacement,or some other
nonphonologicalprocess.A dash marks
and
boundaries.
morpheme
h3
ht,h2,
stand forthe e-ya-yand o-coloring
Capital letters
laryngeals,respectively.
Studies at Athens

markany (or an unknown)representativeof thatclass. So C = any consonant;

H = anylaryngeal;Kw - anylabiovelar;
P = anylabial; R = any resonant(I, r,
myn); T= any dental; V= anyvowel.
An apostrophe(C) markspalatalization. Glosses are given in singlequotes
('moon'). Phonological rulesor changes
are writtenwith a slash / to indicate
the environmentand a blank _ to
show where the phoneme stands:for

432

HOLT N. PARKER

whichIron Age settlements

in the northeastern
Aegean were founded
colonists
from
in
an
area
mainland
Greece.When he
by
Aiolic-speaking
examinedthearchaeological
no good evidence
he
found
remains,
however,
forthisscenario,and was forcedto concludethatthecommunis
opiniowas
incorrect.
He askedme to contribute
a discussionof thelinguisticsituation.As I reexaminedthedata,it becameclearthatthe standardviewof
an Aiolic dialectfamilyis faulty,
and I too havebeen forcedto conclude,
almostreluctantly,
thatourearlierideas cannotbe supported.

THE TRIPOD
The theoryof an Aiolian migrationrestson threelegs: archaeological,
historical,and linguistic(Fig. 1). For the first,Rose concludes:"At no
timeduringthe early1st millenniumdo we have evidenceforattacks,
forthe arrivalof a new populationgroup,or foranysubstantive
change
in ceramicproduction."3
Otherscholarshavenoted,ifnotbeen bothered
by,the lack of archaeologicalevidence.Gschnitzer,forexample,writes:
"The migration
toAsia Minor,whichwe couldassumewas a consequence
of the driveforcolonization,has apparentlynot yet been successfully
dated archaeologically;
it musthave occurredbeforethe corresponding,
but equallyundated,migrationof the Ionians."4Coldstreamexpressesa
similarview:"These Aeolians,accordingto literary
sources,had migrated
fromtheirformerhomesin Boeotia and Thessalyat leastas earlyas the
ofIonians;yetthearchaeological
recordcastsverylittle
parallelmovement
on
them
before
the
late
...
At
light
eighthcentury.
presentwe have no
reliablearchaeological
evidenceconcerning
thecomingofthefirst
Aeolians
to Lesbos."5
Nordo theconflicting
accountsofthecolonizationofAiolis
legendary
such
accountshavebeenacceptedas sosupplyconvincing
support.
Though
berhistory
accounts
bysome,Rosehasshownhowtheseandothermythical
developedand wereadaptedin the courseof the 6th-5thcenturiesB.C.
fora varietyofculturalpurposes.6
In particular,
thegenealogicalaccounts
are merelyattemptsto connectlocal aristocracies
to the royalfamilyof
or
a
father
Mycenae
putativeancestorAiolos,who servesas a convenient
Kw > T/_ e readsas "a labioexample,
velarbecomesthecorresponding
dental
in theenvironment
beforee."Language
abbreviations:
Ark.= Arkadian;
Att.Ion. = Attic-Ionic;
Boiot.= Boiotian;
Cret.= Cretan;Cyp.= Cyprian;Dor. =
Doric;Eng.= English;Germ.= German;Horn.= Homeric;Lak. = Lakonian;Lesb.= Lesbian;Myc.= MycePGrk=
naean;Pamph.= Pamphylian;
PIE = Proto-Indo-EuroProto-Greek;
pean;SGrk= SouthGreek;Skt.=
Thes. = Thessalian.Common
Sanskrit;
abbreviations
ofgrammatical
terms
are
alsoused.
nom.,
ace,
(e.g.,
sing.,pl.)

3. Rose2008,p. 420.
4. Gschnitzer
2002,cols.227-228.
I failto followtheauthors use of"must
have"here.He giveshisreasons:"as
theirterritory
to the
theyextended
northto thecoastoftheA[eolians]
Aeolian;Phocaea
(Smyrnapreviously
on theedgeoftheAeolianhinterland;
Aeoliansubstrate
in thenorthern
Ioniandialects)."
I am notsureI see
howanyoftheseindicatespriority
of
settlement.
The linguistic
evidenceis
uselesssincemostscholarsexplainvariousfeatures
ofLesbianbyrecourse
to
Ionicinfluence
on it (see below).

5. Coldstream
2003,pp.262-263.
6. Rose2008,pp.401-404.Hammond(1975) usesThucydides'
account
to producedatessupposedly
accurate
towithina decade:TrojanWar,ca.
1200 B.C.;Thessalianinvasion,
ca. 1140;
Aiolicmigration
to Lesbos,ca. 1130;
Dorianinvasion,
ca. 112O.Thessalians
andBoiotiansareimaginedas a partof
an invading
Greeks,
groupofNorthwest
in
Greek
originating Epiros.Northwest
andDoric aretreatedcorrectly
as subfamilies
ofWestGreek,which,however,Hammond(1975,p. 703) holdsto
be closelyrelatedtoMycenaean.

THE LINGUISTIC

Figure1. Distributionoftraditional
dialectgroupsin theeasternMedi-

terranean. AfterHainsworth
1982,p. 859,
map28

7. RE 1,1893,col. 1031,s.v.Aioles
(2002,col.228)
(E. Meyer).Gschnitzer
of
the
out,
points "Regarding statement
thattheA[eoofantiquity
thescholars
lians]hadoncesettledin certainareas
ofGreece,thereis,in contrast
[toThuc.
3.102.5],notmuchto go on.This is
becauseon theone handtheyareconofthe
nectedwiththeappearance

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

433

fortheunaffiliated,
andcannotbe usedto inferactualtribal,
gefigure
affiliations.
summed
or
netic, linguistic
Meyerin 1893rightly
up:"Oneis
toconclude
thatallGreektribes
thatwerenotDoricorIonicwere
forced
AioHc.'"7
designated
is gently
corrected
Unduepietytoward
theclassicalsources
byCook:
whichalonegivesa precise
carries
no
"Theconnexion
withOrestes,
dating,
.
.
.
As hefurther
"the
Greek
had
a
conviction."
horror
notes,
antiquarians
intoa chronological
likethisweredulytranslated
vacui Stories
system."
of
"Theschematic
traditions
the
concludes:
He sensibly
migrations
prose
to theEastAegeanaftertheTrojanWarseemin generalto havebeen
B.C."8
Underthatclearlight,
ofthefifth
manypretty
century
compilations
thepathsandeventheexactdatesofa complex
butfanciful
mapsshowing
mustdisappear.9
andsackings
seriesofmigrations,
invasions,
ofthis
us in thepassagequotedat thebeginning
As Grotereminds
there
is
and
such
after mythological
article,
history reconstructions, only
a singlefact.As attested
bySapphoandAlkaios,ataround600 B.C. we
mythological
personalnameAeolus,
theearliestbearerofwhichwasprobas theproablysecondarily
interpreted
genitoroftheA[eolians],andon the
otherhandwiththetheories
concerning
thedivisionoftheGreeksintoa few
thenameA[eolilargetribeswhereby
thatcouldnotbe
an] coveredeverything
ascribedto theDoriansortheIonians."

8. Cook 1975,p. 777.

9. E.g.,Hammond1976,p. 142.An
adaptedversionofthismapis stillprereconsented,albeitas a "conjectural
in
works
struction,"introductory such
as Cartledge2002,p. 45. See alsosimilarmapsin Grant1994,pp. 12-13;
Morkot1996,p. 47.

HOLT

434

N. PARKER

can pushGrotes dateback a bit- peopleon Lesbos werespeakinga distinctiveGreekdialect,one thatmodernlinguistsconsiderto be relatedto
thedialectsofBoiotiaandThessaly(Fig. l).The onlysurviving
leg ofthe
tripod,then,is theidea thatinThessalianand Boiotianwe havea case of
a unifieddialectarea splitbylatecomers,
in thiscase the Doric speakers
of NorthwestGreek,withLesbian as an outlyingprovince.10
That is the
of
this
subject
paper.

THE QUESTION OF AIOLIC

Chadwickhas observedthat"theancients,fromHesiod on,distinguished
threefamiliesofGreek-speaking
peoples:Dorians,Ionians,and Aeolians.
Modernscholarsacceptedthisas a roughbasis,fortheDoric andIonicdialectswereplainlyrecognizable Aeolicwas lesseasilyidentified."11
There
is indeeda problemwiththeAiolic dialect,and it needsreexamination.
In antiquity,
and derivatives
referred
AioA,e\)<;,
AioAaicoq,
onlyto the
inhabitants
ofAiolisproper(Lesbos andtheadjacentshoresofAsia Minor)
andtheirspeech.12
The useof "Aiolic"torefer
to a family
madeup ofAiolian
Thessalian,and Boiotianis a moderncreationbyAhrensin 1839.13
proper,
In thisarticle,I use theterm"Lesbian"to referto thedialectoftheisland
and Asia Minor,"Aiolic"to referto theconventionally
acceptedfamilyof
and
"Aiolian"
to
referto theconventionally
dialects,
acceptedtribes.
Cook givesa goodstatement
ofthestandard
fromlinguistics:
argument
"Thereis atpresentno goodgroundfordisputing
thebeliefthattheGreek
citiesoftheSouthernAeolis (on theAsiaticmainland)werefoundations
oftheDark Age. In latertimesthedialectofLesbos and theAeolisborea
closeresemblance
toThessalianand Boeotian,andin thefifth
B.C.
century
theAeoliansofLesbos andCymerecognizeda kinshipwiththeBoeotians.
The new settlers
maywellhavecome mainlyfromtheseregions."14
10. This scenariois cited as a
standardexample in linguistictextbooks; see, e.g., Hock and Joseph 1996,
pp. 346-365.
11. Chadwick 1956, pp. 38-39. See
Hes. fr.9 MW: "EMtivo; 8' eyevovxo
/Acopoqxe
<pita)7tToAiuou
paaiA,fio<;
5oi)66<;xe mi Aiotax;unuo%dpuTi<;
(The sons of war-lovingking Hellen
were Doros and Xouthos and Aiolos
the chariot-fighter).
Xouthos is the
ancestorof the Ionians. See also Chadwick 1975, p. 811, where he refersto
the ambiguouspositionof the Aiolic
group.Hainsworth (1982, p. 861) also
notes thatdifficult
problemsare posed
by the developmentof Aiolic.
12. Rose (2008, pp. 402-403) discusses the contradictory
claims thatan
area of mainland Greece was called
Aiolis at some earlierpoint. Hdt.
7.176.4: Thessaly,probablyspecifically

Thessaliotis;Thuc. 3.102.5: Aiolis

located at Kalydon and Pleuron,on the
Aitolian coast; Apollod. 1.7.3: Aiolos
was king of the regionsabout Thessaly
and named the inhabitantsAiolians;
Paus. 10.8.4: the Boiotians,who in
more ancienttimesinhabitedThessaly
and were then called Aiolians; Diod.
Sic. 4.67.2: "whatwas thenAiolis and
is now called Thessaly."The scholia on
Pindar (Ol. 1.162, 164) reportthatthe
Aiolians inhabitedThebes, but thisis
no more than a guess to explainwhy
Pindar talksabout the Aiolian mode
of music (xwe<;8e cpaaivoti avcoGev
AioXeix;to yevo<;6 n(v8apo<;); cf.Schol.
Nem. 3.136, which refersto the Aiolians settlingin Thebes. Furtherafield
is Hdt. 7.197, which locates Athamas,
son of Aiolos, in Alos in Akhaia.
In sum, a vague idea existedthat
somewherein the northan area was

once called Aiolis, but whetherThessaly,Boiotia, Akhaia, or Aitolia is

unclear.All of these seem to be backprojections.So Meyer (RE I, 1893,
col. 1030, s.v.Aioles) wrotedrylythat
"the onlypeople who bore this name
were the Aiolians of Asia Minor from
Lesbos, Kyme,etc.These tracedthemselvesback to an eponymousAiolos,
who as the fatherof the Aiolian heroes
Athamas, Kretheus,etc.,naturallymust
have lived in Thessaly."He goes on:
"however,undoubtedlythe home of the
Aeolians is to be soughthere."
13. Ahrens 1839-1843, vol. 1, p. 3.
See also Thumb and Kieckers1932,
pp. 49-50, 60.
14. Cook 1975, p. 777. He gives no
sourceforthe supposed kinshipand
I am unable to findone: Mela 1.90,
Veil. Pat. 1.4.4, and VitaHomeri1.2
give no support.Strabo 13.3.6 shows

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

435

This scenario,however,is notwithoutits troubles.Cook also notes

thattheHomerictradition
recognizedGreekoccupationofLesbos before
theTrojanWar.15His rightly
cautiousconclusionis thatone cannotassumethattheDark Age migrations
werethefirstGreekor Aiolic settlementofLesbos,butonlythatGreeksettlement
thereis notlikelyto have
occurredbefore2300 or after1000 B.C.The two scenarios,however,are
neverreconciled.We seem to have Greeks(presumably
Aiolic speakers)
on Lesbos beforetheTrojanWar,butwe need a secondmigrationfrom
aroundThessalyand Boiotiato peopletheAsian mainland.
In sum,as Rose has shownin theprecedingarticle,thecase forthis
restsalmostentirely
on thelinguisticevimigration
supposedprehistoric
denceofthethreedialects,
whicharethoughttobe closelyrelated.
We have
thentwoquestionsbeforeus:Is thepresenceofthreerelatedbutgeographof speakersfrom
icallyseparateddialectsbestexplainedbythemigration
theone dialectareato theother?And arethedialectsin factrelated?

HOW LANGUAGES SPREAD

To answerthefirstquestion,threebasicpointsneedto be made:(1) there
is no necessaryconnectionbetweenpopulationgroupsand language;(2)
thereis no necessaryconnectionbetweenmaterialcultureand language;
(3) thereis no necessaryconnectionbetweenchangesin languageand
changesin population.16
The firsttwopointsare obvious,ifoftenignored.Once theyare acthatall claimsto link
we areforcedto statequitefirmly
cepted,however,
areformsof specialpleading.17
languageto materialculturein prehistory
Beforethemodernperiod,
The thirdpointdeservesa littleelaboration.
encounall changesin a languageor dialectproceededfromface-to-face
is
not the
of
over
distances
mass
movement
ters.However,
long
peoples
A new languageor dialectcan,of
onlymechanismof suchencounters.18
course,arrivewithnewspeakersofthatlanguageordialect.This scenario,
thatany notionof kinshipin historical
timeswas just an outgrowthof Hesiod's
tale of his fathermigratingfromKyme
to Boiotia (and not the otherdirection):
Hes. Op. 635-638.
15. Hymn.Horn.Ap. 37. Achilles
had sacked Lesbos (//.9.129 = 9.271)
and his bootyincluded a woman bearing a Greek name and patrilineage,
Diomede daughterof Phorbas. Incidental characters,however,usuallyhave
Greek names (Hainsworth 1993, ad
loc.) and thereis a Trojan Phorbas as
well (//.14.490). Odysseus has a
wrestlingmatchon Lesbos with a
Philomeleides(Od. 4.342-346 =
17.133-135). His people are there
contrastedwith the Akhaians and, for
what it is worth,with the Hellenes by
Hellanikos of Lesbos {FGrHA F10).

16. See Pejros 1997, pp. 155-156:

"A directcorrelationbetween the two
accounts [linguisticand archaeological]
is theoreticallyimpossible . . . the sole
linkbetween them is the community
itself.. . . Members of two communities
can speak the same language(s) yethave
materialcultures,or
totallydifferent
havingsimilarmaterialculturestheycan
languages.
speak absolutelydifferent
Change in one characteristicdoes not
necessarilyimplychanges in others."
Mallory and Adams (2006, pp. 449453) discussin detail the theoretical
limitationsof what theycall "retrospective"and "prospective"archaeology.
17. Crossland 1973, p. 7, is a good
example. Cf. Chadwick 1975, p. 815:
"We mustadvance warily,forthereis
no directconnexionbetween the cul-

turesdistinguishedby the archaeologist

and the linguisticgroupsdistinguished
There is forinby the dialect-historian.
stance no archaeologicalfeaturewhich
can be used as a certaintestforDorian
occupation.None the less ..."A common ploy is to rejectany modernevidence, on the (oftenunstatedand always incorrect)groundsthat"things
were simplerback then."Once historical examples are rejected,however,all
thatremainsare unprovableprehistoric
The dangerof telling
reconstructions.
ourselves"just-so stories"is clear.
18. For a theoreticallysophisticated
discussionof the roles thatboth the
"human vector"and the "social vector"
mayhave played in the spreadof IndoEuropean, see Mallory and Adams
2006, pp. 456-460.

HOLT N. PARKER

436

oftheDark Ages as
withtheRomanEmpireand the Volkerwanderungen
Historical
of
underlies
most
reconstructions
implicitmodels,
prehistory.
and his
Max
Miiller
has longdisplayeda prejudice,evenbefore
linguistics
invasionas itsprimary
model.19
Aryaninvasion,formilitary
In an importantreview,Nichols distinguishes
threemechanismsby
whichlanguagesspread:languageshift,demographicexpansion,and miin thenumberofmobilepeople
The mechanismsdiffer
gration.
primarily
involvedin thelanguagespread:
in responseto thepresenceof at leasta
Languageshiftis normally
fewinfluential
immigrants;
demographic
expansioninvolvessome
and
of
rather
than
extermination;
absorption previouspopulation
leads
to
shift
to
or
from
the
(either
migration
language
immigrants'
and
language).The termslanguageshifty
demographic
expansion,
that
refer
to
the
contributor
with
no
claim
predominant
migration
it is exclusive.Almostall literature
on languagespreadsassumes,at
leastimplicitly,
eitherdemographic
as [the]
expansionor migration
basicmechanism,
butin factlanguageshiftis themostconservativeassumptionand shouldbe thedefaultassumption.
There is no
reasonto believethatthemechanismof spreadhas anyimpacton
thelinguistic
ofthespread.20
geography
This lastremarkcan be turnedaround:equally,linguisticgeographycan
offerno information
on themechanismoflanguagespread.
Though a nucleusof people speakinga formof Greek presumably
cameto Lesbos fromsomewhere,
at sometime,thenumbersneednothave
beenlargeand theformsoflanguagespreadaremorevariousthansimply
one populationdisplacinganother.We can use Nichols'soutlineto make
a fewimportant
points.
Languageshift.Languages and dialectscan spreadinto a new area
withoutanymajorchangein thepopulation.Languagesmaybe replaced
in thecourseofonlya fewgenerations
ofprestigedialects
bytheinfluence
andlanguages,
interritorial
boundaries(so theslowlossofBalinese
byshifts
to Bhasa Indonesia),byexchangenetworks
(so therecentspreadofHausa
or theancientspreadofAramaic),orbyextensive
bilingualism in short,
byculturalratherthanphysicalimperialism.21
19. See ChapmanandHamerow
1997andChapman1997forgeneral
accountsoftherise,fall,andriseof
andinvasionas preferred
migration
modelsin archaeology.
Forlinguistic
see especially
Olender1992.
history,
Forthetroubled
oftheAryan
history
invasionhypothesis,
see Bryant
2001.
Warriors
benton conqueststillseem
thebestanswerto Schlerath
(1981,
(2003,p. 68).
p. 199) andMeier-Briigger
20. Nichols1997,p. 372. Bellwood
(2005,p. 191) claimsthat"historical
dataindicatethatlanguageshiftalone,
without
movement
orsome
population
degreeofdispersal
bythepopulation

thetargetlanguage,
hasnever
carrying
createdanything
remotely
equaling
thosevastintercontinental
genetic
oflanguageswithwhichwe
groupings
arehereconcerned.
. . . Imperialconwithout
and
itself,
questby
large-scale
settlement
of
permanent
bymembers
theconquering
population,
generally
imposeslittleapartfromloanwordsin
thelongterm.Tradealsois generally
of
littlesignificance
as a factor
behind
Whether
large-scale
languagespread."
theseobservations
areapplicableto the
spreadofGreekora dialectofGreek
acrosstheAegeanis uncertain.
His own
data,in anycase,do notsupportthis

He citesthelossofLatin
statement.
"in
those
except
regionscloseto the
heartoftheempirefavored
forintensivesettlement
byLatinspeakers"
was not"lost,"
(p. 192). Latin,however,
itsimplychanged,andthe"heartofthe
fromPortugal
to
extended
empire"
Romania.
21. See Renfrew
1987,pp. 120-144,
foran accountdirected
at archaeologists.Essentialreadingarethetwoliterature
reviews
ofNichols1997
(thoughI putno trustin glottochronology)andBellwood2001 (whois skepticalofall factors
see
exceptmigration;
n.20, above).Foran excellent
account

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

437

Changesin theactualpopulationsofspeakers
Demographic
expansion.
occur
without
mass
Dixon pointsto a numberof known
migration.
may
reasonsforone groupof speakersto fadeor flourish:naturalcauses,such
as drought,flood,earthquake,disease;materialinnovations,
such as new
in
tools,weapons,meansof transportation,
techniques productionor in
social
such
as
state
causes,
formation,
agriculture;
changesin hierarchy,
and especiallyreligion;and linguistic
revolution,
factors,such as prestige
and complexity.22
Migration.Evenwhenlanguagechangeis associatedwithpopulation
change,invasionis nottheonlyoption:a new groupof speakersmayaror slowinfiltration,
and each processmightor
rivebypeacefulmigration
in
record.
thenewarrivals
not
leave
traces
the
Further,
archaeological
might
in
or
drive
out
former
live
contained
settlements,
inhabitants,
any
might
In
invasions
can
and
do
sometimes
and
occur,
short,
migrations
intermarry.23
sometimes
withlittle
effects
on thepreexisting
withcatastrophic
languages,
orinvasionin theabsenceofclear
effect
at all,butto presupposemigration
error.24
historicalor archaeologicaldata is a methodological
about
the spreadof
we
have
been
Furthermore,
talkingprimarily
language.Dialectswithina languageare muchmorelikelyto developby
thespreadofinnovations(isoglosses)thanbypopulationchange.Dialect
contactcan,ofcourse,occurbymigration(witness,forexample,thesudden arrivalofAnatolianGreekin themainlandfollowingthepopulation
exchangesofthe1920s),butchangecomesmoreoftenin theformofdifin speechfromlargerpopulationcentersto smaller
fusionofan innovation
onesand thenceto moreruralareas(theso-calledgravity
model),withthe
"the
extentand rateof changeheavilyinfluenced
by
phenomenonitself,
communication
distance,time,and socialstructure/'25
networks,
the presenceof a feature
In earlierperiodsof historicallinguistics,
of one dialectin anotherwas usuallyexplainedby
deemedcharacteristic
some40
However,as Cowgillwroteoptimistically
populationmovements.
dialect
canspreadacrossexisting
thatinnovations
yearsago,"therealization
boundarieshas led to sobererviewsofprehistoric
migrations."26
distinoflanguagespreadinAfrica,
trade(whichcanbe accomguishing
"trade
plishedbypidginsandsimplified
a
cultural
vs.
"generalized
languages")
see Nettle1996,esp.p. 412.
exchange,"
ofprestige
Fortheinfluence
dialects,
see Dixon1997,pp.22-25,79-80,
104-114,145-148.
22. Dixon 1997,pp.22-24,75-83.
ForthespreadofArabic,seeVersteegh
1997,esp.pp. 71-72,93-98,102-113.
a good
23.The Normansoffer
exampleofa groupwhocompletely
replacedtheirlanguage(fromOld
withinperNorseto Gallo-Romance)
with
two
generations, no discernhaps
record.
ibletracesin thearchaeological
24. Rhodes(2006) studiedtheinteractionsofCreeandOjibwe-Potawatomiin theGreatLakesregionover

500 years,notingthat"every
logically
possibletypeoflanguagespreadis
in thisarea,allbutone inattested
In this
volvingonlyhunter-gatherers.
intounoccupied
areawe findmigration
withone population
migration
territory,
and
thena number
another,
replacing
ofspreadswithintermingling
populato
tionsbothwithmigrators
switching
andwithmigrators'
thelocallanguage,
thelocallanlanguagesupplanting
of
thereareinstances
guage,andfinally
languagesmovingwithoutmigration,
i.e.,languageshift."
Modernconsensusseemsto favora
model,explicequilibrium"
"punctuated
itlybasedon Goulds modelofevolutionandspeciation
(e.g.,Dixon 1997,
andDixon2001,
Aikenvald
67-86;
pp.
and
See
9-11).
Janda
Joseph2003,
pp.

history.
pp.50-58,fortheintellectual
Watkins(2001,pp.48-49),however,
to Indoquestionsitsapplicability
European:"To speakofpunctuation
theissuerather
by'invasion'
prejudges
of
the
severely; Indo-Europeanization
Italyandmanyotherareasseemsto
andin
havetakenplacebothgradually
a woefullabChinaprovides
driblets."
andinvaofmassmigrations
oratory
times:thelinguistic
sionsin historical
effects
aresurveyed
byLaPolla2001.
and Schilling-Estes
25. Wolfram
2003,p. 727; see theentirearticlefor
Hock andJoseph
overview.
an excellent
(1996,pp.346-365) setoutthedetails
ofdialectgeography
andproblems
"Aiolic"as one oftheir
and
use
clearly,
examples.
26. Cowgill1966,p. 78.

HOLT

438

N. PARKER

THE ORIGIN OF AIOLIC

The questionof the "origin"of Aiolic, therefore,
is alreadysomewhat
It is closelytiedto thequestionofthe"comingoftheGreeks,"
misstated.
whichis in turntied to whereeach scholarpicturesan Indo-European
A west-to-east,
Urheimat.21
mainland-to-island,
theoryis largely
migration
whichviewsthe
theunexaminedresidueoftheold "ThreeWave"theory,
introduction
ofGreekas a seriesofmigrations
fromthenorthintomainland Greeceof firstIonians,then"Akhaians"(includingthe ancestorsof
theAiolians),and finally
The exclusivefocuson themainland
Dorians.28
leavestheGreekpresencein northern
Anatoliaand alongthecoastto be
explainedbylaterpopulationmovements,
usuallyin theformof"refugees"
fromthe"Dorian Invasion."
In truth,
we haveno idea wheretheGreekscamefrom,or evenifthat
is theproperquestionto ask.As Nicholspointsout,the Balkanscan be
and havebeen enteredfromthenorthwest,
thatis,CentralEurope (so in
historicaltimes,Slovene,Serbo-Croat);fromthe northeast,
the Pontic
and
from
the
Anatolia
east,
(so Turkish,and Rosteppe(so Bulgarian),
"Forno ancientlanguageoftheBalkansdo
many).She aptlysummarizes:
we have evidenceas to whetherit enteredfromAsia Minor or fromthe
steppeto the north.... In short,thereis no compellingevidence,either
orarchaeological,
forbringing
Greektoitsattested
locationeither
linguistic
fromthenorthor fromAnatolia."29
The Aiolic migrationtheoryis based on manyunexaminedpresuppositions.The historiesof languagespreadare vastlymorecomplicated
thana successionofinvasions,and we can pointto at leastthreedifferent
factorsthatmustbe determinedin orderto explainthe presenceof the
Lesbian dialectin thenortheast
Aegean:theoriginallinguisticsituation,
theprocessoflanguagespread,and thesourceofLesbian.Foreach factor
a numberofpossibilities
exist.Herewe mustadmitthatwe haveno strong
evidenceforanyofthese.We do notknowtheoriginallinguistic
situation,
theprocessoflanguagespread,orwhatformofGreekwas firstspokenon
Lesbos and the adjacentcoast.I thusproposethe followingpossibilities
forconsideration:
A. Situation
1. The earlierinhabitants
spokeanyone or anynumberof
non-Greeklanguages.They thenadoptedsomeearlierform
of Greek(Proto-Greek)as theirlanguageofchoice,which
evolvedintoLesbian locally.
2. The earlierinhabitants
spokeanyone or anynumberof
non-Greeklanguages.They thenadoptedan alreadyevolved
Lesbian as theirlanguageofchoice.
3. The earlierinhabitants
spokesomeotherdialectof Greek.
then
Lesbian
as theirdialectof choice.
They
adopted
B. Process.The earlierinhabitants,
speakingwhateverlanguageor
dialect,adoptedLesbian through
1. languageshift,
a changein a politicalor culturalelite;
involving

27. See Mallory1989foran excelalsoMallory1997.Fora

lentsurvey;
moretheoretical
shorter,
approach,
seeMalloryandAdams2006,pp.4421981on theo463. See also Schlerath
overviews
reticalissues.Forhistorical
ofinvasionas an a prioriexplacritical
nation,see Hausler1998 and2003,
thoughI cannotaccepthisconclusion
thatProto-Indo-European
was always
present,
spreadoverthevastareas
in
occupiedbyIndo-European
speakers
historical
times.See thecriticisms
of
Mallory(1989,pp.254-257).The same
ofmigration/invasion
has
assumption
dominated
thenotionof"thecoming
oftheAryans"
(see n. 19,above).So,
too,in"thecomingoftheCelts";see
James1999,Collis2003.Morse(2005,
pp. 179-180) sumsup:"Archaeologists
arenowdebating
itis useful
whether
to saythattheCeltsin factcameto
Britain If research
intopre-Roman
Britainwereto startagainfromscratch,
itis hardto imaginethattheterm
Celticwouldplaya significant
role."
28. Firstclearlyarticulated
by
Kretschmer
(1909); see alsoChadwick
1975,pp. 812-817.
29. Nichols1998,pp.249-250.

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

439

2. demographicexpansionthroughchangesin local population

groups;
3. migration,
colonization,diffusion;
4. invasion.
C. Source.The earlierinhabitants,
speakingwhateverlanguageor
dialect,adoptedLesbian,bywhateverprocess,from
1. mainlandGreeceacrosstheAegean;
2. theBalkansacrosstheDardanelles;
3. inlandAnatolia.
It is obvious
One couldeasilypointto otherfactorsand possibilities.
we face a minimumof 36
fromthe foregoinglist that,mathematically,
Proto-Greek
scenarios(AioliansinvadetheTroadfromThessaly/Boiotia;
new
from
the
a
trade
arrivesas a
north;
princebringsLesbian
language
as a courtlanguagefromthe east,etc.).None of thesescenarioshas any
overtheothers.
linguisticsuperiority
andarchaeoofconnecting
Giventhedifficulties
linguistic
prehistoric
of
the
multiplicity possiblescenarios,Chadwicks
logicaldata,and given
pithycommentmayserveto sumup:"Myownopinion,advancedwithdue
cautionbutfirmly
held,is thatthequestion,'Wheredid theGreekscome
ill
thequestionis certainly
from?'
is meaningless."30
Or,ifnotmeaningless,
the
not
about
should
be
We
formedand unanswerable.
coming
thinking
ofGreeks,butof GreekOur specificquestionsarethuswhenand howdid
people firststartspeakingLesbian Greekon Lesbos and the northcoast
ofAsia Minor?Our honestanswerto whencan onlybe, sometimebefore
600 B.C.,and theanswerto how mustbe,we cannotbe sure.

DATA AND METHODOLOGIES

30.Chadwick
1973,p.255.

of the relationsbetweenthe dialectsis complicated

Our understanding
of the data themselvesand of our analyses.Of the
nature
the
messy
by
dividedintotwomain
threebranchesofAiolic,Thessalianis traditionally
need to
areas,Pelasgiotisand Thessaliotis.At leastfiveregions,however,
Perrhaibiain thenorth;Pelasgiotisand Magnesiain the
be distinguished:
and Phthiotisin theWest.Of theseonlyPelasgiotis
Thessaliotis
and
east;
is
Larissa) at all wellattested.It maybe suspectedthat"Thes(principally
salian"itselfis merelya convenient
coveringtermfora numberofdifferent
dialectsthatshareno commoninnovations.
but
and epigraphically,
Boiotianis ratherwell attestedbothliterarily
of Sappho and Alkaios,in addiThe fragments
Lesbian is problematic.
weresubjectto an
theravagesof timeand transmission,
tionto suffering
Lesbianisverypoorlyattested
standardization.
Alexandrian
Epigraphically,
beforethe5th centuryB.C.,and mainlandLesbian is knownfromonlya
beforethe4thcentury.
handfulofinscriptions
muddied
factson thegroundis further
ofthelinguistic
Interpretation
"mixture,"
by threefactors:(1) a loose use of termssuch as "borrowing,"
between
like
to
the
and
dialects,
"substratum,"
isoglosses
explaindiffering

440

HOLT N. PARKER

as thougheach dialectvisiteda smorgasbord

of features;31
(2) a loose use
ofdiffering
of
features
to
so
that
types
groupdialects,
phonological,deriand lexicalsimilarities
are all thrownintothe same
vational,inflectional,
"innova(3) a loose use oftermssuchas "older,"
"conservative,"
hopper;32
and so on,whichleadsto theviewthata "conservative"
tive,""progressive,"
- which
dialect
oughttomeannothingmorethanonewithfewersignificant
or
phonological morphological
changes is somehow"older"thana dialect
withmoresound changes.This usage in turnleads to theviewthatthe
"conservative"
dialectis therefore
dialect.
ancestralto the"innovative"
This last beliefoftencarrieswithit a further
unexaminedassumptionthatthe"older"dialectmustbe the one to have stayedhome,while
the"innovators"
This notionis centralto the assumptionthat
migrated.
mainlandGreece (Thessaly,Boiotia) mustbe the homelandfromwhich
Aiolic speakersfannedout to Lesbos and the Troad.33Such a pattern,
however,is contradicted
by numerousinstances.An obviousexampleis
AmericanEnglish.Migrationwas followedby the migrants'language
variousinnovations
in isolation,butin factAmericanEnglish
undergoing
is moreconservative
thanBritishEnglishin certainfeatures.
Forexample,
in phonologyAmericanEnglishhas retainedpreconsonantal
[r] (lost in
standardBritishEnglish)and [ae] in wordssuchasfast,ask,path,dance,
and so on. In morphology,
AmericanEnglishretainsgotten(vs.got,retainedonlyin ill-gotten),
dove(vs. dived),and so on.The same is truefor
IcelandicversusNorwegian,andthesituationis commonly
seenin isolated
communities
immigrant
(e.g.,Amishin the United States,Doukhobors
in Canada).34
In tryingto determineancestralrelationships
amongdialectsor lanthree
guages,
important
principlesshouldbe bornein mind.Dialects and
languagescan differin innovations(new soundsand forms),archaisms
(sounds and formsretainedin some but lost in others),and selections
The first
is thatonlyshared
(choicesbetweensoundsandforms).35
principle
31.The basicnotionbehindinvokis to attribute
features
inga substratum
characteristic
ofone dialect
thought
-eaoi dativesinAiolic)
(forexample,
butfoundin another(forexample,
in
Northwest
of
Greek)to theinfluence
thepeoplewhousedto livethere(so
Schmitt1977,p. 29). Thus,e.g.,an
substratum
is invoked
Arkado-Cyprian
to explainanomaliesin Lakonianand
Cretan(Garcia-Ramon
2002b,
col. 1016).However,substrate
effects
into
another's
(onepopulation
moving
areaand"overlaying"
thenatives)
cannotbe distinguished
fromborrowin contact).Only
ings(populations
evidenceofmovement
independent
allowsus to determine
thescenario.
evenin casesofcontact,
exFurther,
communicachangemayoccurthrough
tionnetworks
as wellas geographical

See thestrictures
ofRix
proximity.
(1994,pp. 18-19). Fora detailedcriticismoftheexplanatory
powerofsubstratain thiscontext,
see Hock and
Joseph1996,pp.382-387;a pithy
critiquebyTrask(2000,p. 329); anda
casestudyofCastilianinTrask1997,
pp.415-429.
32.This is a persistent
bad habit.
See,e.g.,Risch1955,p. 75,witha chart
of20 randomisoglosses;
Wyatt1970,
witha different
20 plus29 othersubrulesto arriveat a final25; Finkelberg
setof20; and
1994,fora different
2005,pp. 115-117,witha
Finkelberg
revisedlistof21. Coleman(1963) tops
thelistwith51 features
to a
subjected
correlation
coefficient
Each
analysis.
authorcombinesphonological,
derivaandlexicaldiffertional,inflectional,
ences,andfailsto distinguish
rigorously

betweeninnovations,
selecretentions,
tions,andindependent
parallelchanges.
33. See,e.g.,Wyatt1970,p. 627;
MendezDosuna 2007,p. 460.
34. Sihler,2000,p. 173:"Thereis
aboutthis:innovanothing
mystical
tionsin theisolatedgroupwillbe limitedto thosethatariselocally.Bycona groupin contactwithothersimtrast,
ilarformsofspeechwillbothmakeits
owninnovations
andbe influenced
by
elsewhere."
Retenchangesoriginating
tionis not,ofcourse,a necessary
feature
ofcolonies;thepointis merely
that
neither
is "progress."
The phrase"coloniallag"coinedbyMarckwardt
(1958,
beenmisapplied;
p. 80) hassometimes
see Gorlach1987;Trudgill
1999.
35. See Rodrfgues
Adrados1952for
a clearexplanation;
also Karali2007,
389.
p.

THE

LINGUISTIC

CASE

FOR

THE

AIOLIAN

MIGRATION

441

Shared archaismscannotpoint to
innovationsshow any relationship.36
selections
froma commonstock.The point
nor
can
different
groupings
can be made clearby a biologicalanalogy.Both fishand catsretaintheir
humansdo not.That is not,however,
a
tailsfromtheancestralcreatures;
ratherthancatsand
reasonto classfishand cats(who sharetails)together
thatdifofbeingmammals).Further,
humans(who sharetheinnovations
to
is
cannot
a
reliable
selections
guide grouping perhapsone
provide
fering
To takea linguistic
ofdialectology.
ofthemostoftenoverlookedprinciples
words
for
'one':
theregular
has
two
*sem->
example,Proto-Indo-European
ordinaland *oy-probablymeaning'alone' or the like.Greek,Tocharian,
*sem-(Greekeiq,TocharianB seyArmenianmek;
and Armenianinherited
>
Sanskrit*dy-kos
see below).All otherschose *dy-withvarioussuffixes:
> Old Irishden,
eka;*6y-wos> Avestanaeuuo,Old Persianaiva; *dy-nos
Latin unus,Gothic ainsyEnglishone.But Greek and Tocharianare not
sisterlanguagesanymorethanareLatinand English.Choice fromamong
tellsus nothing.37
alternatives
Second,fora sharedinnovationto provideanyevidence,theinnovationmustbe trulyshared,thatis, it mustbe genetic.Again,a biological
examplecan be provided:both birdsand bats have wings.But a bird's
innovationthana bats.Justso in dialects
different
wingsarea completely
similarfeaturesare oftendue notto thespread
or languages,remarkably
innovaofan isogloss,thatis,bycontact,butbyparallelbutindependent
tionswithineach branch.
The Second CompensatoryLengtheningin Greekis a good examLengthple(Fig.2). Final-ns(andso notsubjecttotheFirstCompensatory
ening,see below),forexample,in accusativepluraltons,stayedas xovq
beforevowels,butdevelopedto xo<;beforeconsonants.Older Cretan(the
butthexoqforms
GortynLaw Code, forexample)keepsthisdistribution,
aregeneralizedin Thessalian(but not Lesbian or Boiotian)as well as in
Arkadian,and withinDoric in Theran, Kyrenaian,and Koan, but not
elsewhere.All theotherdialectsgeneralizethetov<;form,whichis either
36. So Wyatt(1970,pp.560-561):
"In thissearchonlysharedlinguistic
innovations
can,thoughtheyneednot,
value.Sharedretenhaveevidential
is notevidence
tionofan archaism
Hainsworth
whatsoever."
(1982,p. 857)
a weak
is willingto grantconservation
as of
value:"Puttogether
evidentiary
of
manner
all
were
equalimportance (a)
ofcertain
innovation,
(b) generalization
at theexpenseofothfeatures
inherited
These must
ers,and(c) conservation.
orderof
as ofdescending
be regarded
innovation
shared
And
importance.
ofgeneticrelation
is indicative
onlyif
of
to thegeneralpattern
itconforms
isoglosses."
37.This problemstillbedevils
ProtoForexample,
Greekdialectology.
ofwaysto say'if:
Greekhad a variety

The first,
ei,is thelocativeof
ei,ai, r\.
*e-/othepronominal
(cf.elxa):so
'when/
'where,'
temporally
spatially
of
'if; ai is thefeminine
conditionally
theold
thesame;r\'where/when
Adrados1952,
instrumental
(Rodrfgues
1992,vol.1,
pp.31-32; Meier-Bnigger
1999,p. 316,
p. 67,E 305; Chantraine
thesemantic
s.v.ei); all haveroughly
do this'-> 'if
'when
you
development
distribution
youdo this.'The differing
ofArt.-Ion.andArk.ei,Aiol.andDor.
ai, andCyp.T|hasbeentakenas an
ifdisturbing,
isogloss
important,
(Rischsno.5 [1955,p. 75,chart];but
whydoesAiolicagreewithDoric?
WhydoesCypriannotagreewith
inherited
Yet,Attic-Ionic
Arkadian?).
all three:ei themostgeneralized;
r\
1939withav > ea"v(rightly
Schwyzer

1953,vol.2, p. 680,n. 1,whichalone

explainsthelongalpha;see
adequately
notedbyLejeune1972,
thedifficulties
for
theconventional
232,
374,
p.
ei + av); andai in ai yap
explanation
keptonlyin epicdiction.Anotherobfound
viousexampleis thedifference,
on all theselists(Risch'sno.7 [1955,
p. 75,chart]),of6-xe(Art.,Ion.,Myc,
Ark.,Cyp.)vs.6-xa (Lesb.,Thes.)
vs.ora (Boiot.,Dor.).Yetevenwithin
we haveArt.ei-xa,ercei-xa,
Attic-Ionic
The sameholds
vs.Ion. ei-xe,ercei-xe.
forthemodalsav, ice,Ka (Rischsno.6
[1955,p. 75,chart]).All oftheseare
varioususesofdifferent
pronominal
andeachdialect
adverbsorparticles,
selectedone ormore.None is a reliable
basisforsubgrouping.

442

HOLT N. PARKER

Figure2. ChartoftheSecond
CompensatoryLengthening

retained(as in Argolic)or undergoestheSecond Compensatory

Lengtheningto totx;or xcbq,or in Lesbian and Elean changesto zoiq (witha
further
finalrhotacismin Elean to xoip!).Despite thesimilarity
ofresult,
no dialectspread,isogloss,dialectmixture,
ormigration
unites
substratum,
Lesbos and Elis.38In short,a numberof thingsthathave been labeled
isoglossesare nothingof the kind.They are independentbut parallel
innovations.
to theabove,evengenuinelysharedinnovations
Third,as a corollary
not
an
dialectgeogramay
alwaysprovide infallibleguide to preexisting
phy.Sound changesand lexical or morphologicalborrowingsbetween
contiguousareascan be blockedbygeographicalfeatures(e.g.,mountain
ofcommunicaranges,rivers).Equallyso,theycanproceedalonga variety
tionpathsleavingintervening
or
(uninhabited sparselypopulated)areas
untouched.39
relatively
38. Or Thessalian,
and
Arkadian,
scattered
formsofDoric.Cf.Chadwick
1975,p. 806.
39. It is a failure
to takethesediffactors
into
account
thatvitiates
fering
muchofFinkelbergs
to recreattempt
atea Greek"dialectcontinuum"
(1994;
are
2005,pp. 109-139).Sharedfeatures
notnecessarily
a goodguideto geoTalkof"bridge"
graphical
proximity.
unlesseach
dialects,
etc.,is unhelpful
individual
isoglossis givenitsdue

1982,p. 862:
weight.So Hainsworth
"Aeolicappearsas a medleyofWest
andEast Greek.... It is thusan early
exampleofa bridgedialect."GarciaRamon2002b,col. 1016:"TrotoAeolic/whichsprangup inThessaly
andhad East-and,in particular,
West-Greek
underwent
a
features,
seriesofprobably
post-Mycenaean
changesthereandthenspreadto
Boeotia(around1250) andAeolis
(around1000)."

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

443

THE GREEK DIALECTS

We now turnto the second main questionof thispaper:Are Lesbian,
Thessalian,and Boiotiandialectsrelatedas membersofan Aiolic family?
Is theresuch a thingas "Aiolic"at all? Each of thesedialectsundergoes
butthereis no reasonto groupanytwoof
innovations
manyindependent
themtogetheras a highernode on a cladisticstemma.In short,I findno
good evidenceforLesbian,Thessalian,and Boiotianhavinganycommon
ancestorhigheron a stemmathanProto-Greekitself.40
modelsofhowthe
The pictureis confusedbya numberofconflicting
of
Greekdialectsarerelated.Cowgilland Schmittgiveexcellentoverviews
thehistoryoftheproblem,whichhas itsoriginsin theoriesthatdatewell
in the
ofLinearB and thathaveleftdeepfurrows
beforethedecipherment
Rischs1949 and 1955 articlesandCowgills 1966workremain
literature.41
The mostimportant
factto emerge
to a clearunderstanding.
fundamental
is thatthereexisteda South Greekdialectgroup,includingMycenaean,
of
Arkadian,Cyprian,and Attic-Ionic,markedbya veryearlyassibilation
> *ts.42
This assibilation
was sufficiently
both*Has wellas of*ty/t(b)y
early
thatit fedanotherchangein South Greekof *ts> ss > s (in all positions,
even aftershortvowels),thus forminga groupseparatenot onlyfrom
Doric,butalso fromLesbian,Thessalian,and Boiotian.Three important
pointsshouldbe made.First,*{t,th]> ts/_{y,i] is a singlephonological
rule.43
Second,thisearlyassibilationpreceded(bled) thelaterPan-Greek
Third,
includingcasesofneworrestored
*t+y(see below).44
palatalizations,
>
of
*ti
but
not
a laterand entirely
Lesbianunderwent
si,
separatechange

> ss> 5.45

of*t(*)y

40. Ringe (pers. comm.) has performeda similarstudyon ArkadoCyprianand foundno secureshared
innovations.South Greek appears to
into fourdifferent
have split,therefore,
dialects:Myc, Ark.,Cyp., and Att.Ion. Wyatt (1970, p. 627) also doubts
the existenceof an Aiolic family.He,
however,sees the dialectsin purelysociological terms:"Indeed, we nevercan
referto Ae[olic] as a whole, and have
insteadalwaysto thinkof L[esbian]
T[hessalian] B[oiotian] as separateentities,L[esbian] a low-class P[roto-]
G[reek] dialectwhich latermoved into
the innovatingsphereof G [reek];
T[hessalian] a low-class P[roto-]
G[reek] dialectwhich remainedout of
touchwith the restof the G[reek]
world fromthe veryearliesttimes;
B[oiotian], a low-class P[roto-]G[reek]
dialectwhich affectedthe conservatism
of N[orth-]W[est]
characteristic
G[reek]." See also Wyatt 1973, p. 43.
41. Cowgill 1966; Schmitt1977.

42. The South Greek dialect group

is also called East Greek or sometimes
Akhaian, but as these termshave been
used in a varietyof ways,it is betterto
adopt Rischs (1955, p. 70) and Cowgills (1966, pp. 79, 93) label of South
the
Greek. Because of the syllabary,
Mycenaean evidenceis clear only for
cases of ti > si, showingthe palatalization and change to -s(s)- but not
necessarilyss > s.
43. Failure to grasp thispoint,or the
use of -ti > -si as a typeof shorthand
forthe change (e.g., Hainsworth 1982,
p. 860), can lead to severemisunderstandings.So Wyatt (1970, p. 563; cf.
p. 566) writes:"Hence -si is an innovation.It is also clear thatthis innovation affectedCyprus,the pre-Dorian
Peloponnese,Attica,and the Asia
Minor coast. It is not certainthatit
affectedall these areas at the same time,
but the most reasonablehypothesisis
thatit did. If so, L[esbian] speech was
alreadylocalized on Lesbos when this

change took place, and that,fromthe

evidence of Mycenaean, musthave been
before1200." That is, he is lumping
Lesbian in withMycenaean and others.
However,since Lesbian shows onlya
change of ti > si, and not *t(h)y> ss > s
foundin South Greek,Wyatt (p. 568)
is forcedinto a contradictory
picture
wherebyLesbian is alreadyin Lesbos
duringthe Mycenaean period,but also
arrivesin Lesbos afterthe change of
*t(h)y> ss> s.
44. That is, the change removed
(bled) sourcesof/ and ththatwould
have undergonethe laterpalatalizations.
45. This, again, is usuallyascribed
to Ionian influence(e.g., Risch 1955,
p. 71), as if the Lesbians had asked to
borrowa cup of third-personsingulars,
but is in facta regular,new sound
change of ti > si in all positionsthat
feedsthe curiousLesbian treatmentof
the Second CompensatoryLengthening; so in third-personpluralthematic:
*-o-nti> -onsi > -oysi> -oiai.

HOLT N. PARKER

444

Some standardexamplesare:
> xoaaoq; but SouthGreek
(cf.Lat. tot< tot'i)> *totsos
*tdty-o-s
to-so-de
(xoaov8e).
togo<;,Mycenaean
> hdtsos
(Cretanoo<;,spelling-ts-\lateroxxoq)> Lesbian
*Hydty-os
ooooq; butAtticand Arkadianoaoq.
> *kwdtsos
> Lesbiannooooc,(versusBoiotian6-noixoq,
*kwdty-o-s
Cretano-rcoxxoq);
but SouthGreeknocoq.
> *metyos
>
Lat.
(cf.
medius)> Proto-Greek*methyos
*medh-yo-s
>
*metsosLesbian ueaaoq (versusBoiotianand Cretanjxexxoq);
but SouthGreekueooq,cf.Mycenaeanme-sa-ta'middlequality*
= ueo(o)ccxo<;.
With original*-ts-:*pod-si> Proto-Greek*potsi> noaci but South
GreekkogL
With original-ss-:Proto-Greek*genes-si> yeveaai (theanalogical
sourcethenofthethird-declension
dativepluralin -eooi) but
SouthGreekyeveai.
manner,sucha group
Despite ourtendencyto thinkin a bifurcating
oftheotherdialectsto each other.
impliesnothingabouttherelationships
A SouthGreekdialectdoes notimplya unitary
"NorthGreek"dialector
other
situation.46
any
AlOLIC

WITHIN

THE GREEK

DlALECTS

The Aiolic dialectfamilyis said to be distinguished

bya grabbag of features.Hainsworthprovidesa good exampleof the standardlist47and its
jumblednature,quotedhere:
1. labialreflexes
ofkwe,
etc.
2. perfectparticiplein -ovx3. dativepluralin -eoai
4. geminationofliquidsand nasalsas reflexof -ov-etc.(not
Boiotian)
5. ice= uioc
6. patronymic
adjectivein -ioq
It is a muchbetterprocedureto takethelistsin thehandbooks,combinethesignificant
and reorderthem,dealingfirst
withthephofeatures,
then
and
lexical
A
nological,
morphological, finally
isoglosses. moreuseful
listwouldlook likethis:
Phonological

1. labialreflexes
ofkwevenbeforee
2.*r>po/op
Morphological
3. dativepluralin -eaai
4. perfectparticiplein -cov,-ovxLexical/derivational
5. i'oc= uia
6. patronymic
adjectivein -loq

46. ContraRisch1955,p. 71; Chadwick1956,p. 40; 1975,p. 811;Wyatt

1970,p. 626.
47. Hainsworth
1982,pp. 860-861.
Forsimilarlists,see Buck1955,p. 147,
201; Scherer1959,pp.4-5; Schmitt
1977,p. 121; Garcia-Ramon
2002a;
2002b,col. 1014;MendezDosuna
2007,pp.461-463.

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

445

Hainsworth'sno. 4- "geminationof liquids and nasals as reflexof -av- needs

"notBoiotian"
etc," withtheveryimportant
qualification
special
and is discussedbelow.
treatment,
The problemis thatnoneoftheseis especially
strongas a caseofshared
innovation.
Hainsworthnotesthatthelast,use ofthepatronymic
adjective,
indeedProto-Indo-Eurois an archaism.48
InheritedfromProto-Greek,
What he,andtheauthorsofmanyhandbooks,
pean,itis uselessas evidence.
arearchaisms,
too.
failto noteis thatmostoftheotherfeatures
Labiovelars.The default(unconditioned)outcomeof thelabiovelars
(stillunchangedin 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 dentalsbeforee

(Kw > T/_ e).49As thehandbooksnote,thischangedoes notoccurin Lesbian,Thessalian,and Boiotian.What has notbeenclearlynoted,however,
is thatthischangealso does notoccurin Arkadian>andCyprian.50
is straightforward:
ForLesbian,Thessalian,andBoiotian,thesituation
arepreserved
intactuntillate,whentheysimply
labiovelars
theProto-Greek
Some standardexamplesare:
turnintolabialsin all environments.
> Atticrcevxe,
butLesbian andThessalianrceuTie
*kw:
*penkwe
Doric,etc.,TeA,-exai,
(kweA,6uvoi),
*kV)el->
Mycenaeanqe-ro-me-no
butLesbianneXexai
> kowtj,but neioi8iicr|,
Mycenaeanqe-te-oy
*kwey-:
*kwoy-neh2
BoiotianIliaiSdcn (withei > i), AtticTeiai8iKT|,Thessalian
etc.
a7c-7cei-odTO'o,
'thehollows/butBoiotoanBetapoi
so AeAxpoi
'hollow/
gw:*gwe/bhmorecomplicated.
ForArkadianand Cyprianthesituationis slightly
dialect
underwent
its
then
each
but
their
labiovelars
too
intact,
They
kept
In
we
and
affrication.
ownparticular
(andverylate)palatalization
Cyprian
> tsis,spelledsi-se,laterciq (vs. xiq).51
find*kw> tsonlybeforei; so *kwis
ElsewhereCyprianshowstheregularlabialdevelopment(evenbeforee)\
> iceioei,spelledpe-i-se-i(Art.xeioei).
future*kwei-suntilitsownseparatepalatalizathelabiovelars
Arkadianalsopreserves
useda special
earliest
*
and
e.
The
tionbeforebothhighvowels,
inscriptions
s ora, whichspelledonly*kw
transcribed
signM(a formofsan apparently),
and so
siva = xiva,eise = ei'-xe,
vowels(i and e)>so osei = o-xcp,
beforefront
on.52Laterspellingssuchas 6i<;= oa-xiqshowthatthistoowas somekind
labiothesurviving
ts.53
Afterthesetwopalatalizations,
ofaffricate,
probably
velarsin Cyprianand Arkadian,as elsewherein Greek,becamelabials.54
48. Hainsworth 1982, p. 862. See
also Mendez Dosuna 2007, p. 462.
49. We are almost certainlydealing
with a palatalizationbeforefrontvowels
generally,precededby an earlypalatalization beforei. The situation,however,
is complicatedand cannot be discussed
here,but it does not affectthe point.
Aiolic sharesthe earlychange of kwi->
xiq (this change is post-Mycenaean
but
are
intact
wherethe labiovelars
not sharedwithArkadian or Cyprian);

the odd Thessalian ki<;has been ab> *ou-kiswith the

stractedfrom*ou-kwis
usual loss of the labial co-articulation
beforeor afteru (cf.*ou-kwid[the unaccented enclitic]*noway' > o\>kiHorn,
[line end] > oi>k).
50. Lejeune 1972, p. 47, 34.
51. That thiswas a change of inherited labiovelarsis shown by the factthat
it did not apply to inherited/,kyetc.
52. E.g., Mantinea, Buck 1955,
no. 17. The cases of *gwcome
198,
p.

fromthe glosses.
53. Lejeune 1972, pp. 50-52, 3840.
54. Later Arkadian shows the dental
in all formsof ogtk;,as well as Ttevxe,
eo-diXX-ovzec,
(pdMxo), odekoq. See
Schmitt1977, p. 86. This is due to
influencefromotherdialects(see, e.g.,
Buck 1955, pp. 174-175), thoughit
may also representa regulardevelopmentof the new *ts> t>*dz > d.

HOLT

446

N. PARKER

What we dealingwith,then,is a changethatdid notoccur.Lesbian,

Thessalian,and Boiotianescapedthepalatalizationof labiovelarsbefore
frontvowels,as did Arkadianand Cyprian.We can imaginethispalatalizationas a change spreadingthroughan alreadydifferentiated
dialect
and
all the
continuum,
Attic-Ionic,
Doric,
Later,
affecting
Pamphylian.
labiovelars
to
labials.
we
can
This, too,
remaining
changed
image as a
a
dialect
continuum
or
as
a
natural
set
ofindechangespreadingthrough
in variousbranches.55
The absenceof the changeis
pendentinnovations
no morereasonto groupLesbian,Thessalian,and Boiotiantogether(and
add Arkadianand Lesbian) thanthepresenceofthechangeis a reasonto
groupAttic-Ionic,Doric, and Pamphyliantogether.
*r>po/op.When we reexaminethechangeof *r> po/opwe findthat
theevidenceis lessoverwhelming
thanthehandbooksmakeitseem.56
For
Lesbianthereareonlysixcertainforms:
1. Ppo%e(a)(Sappho 31.7 ) < *mrgh-u>
2. auPpoxe(Sappho 5.5) < zero-grade*h2mrt(cf.*n-h2mert-esvrmepxriO
3. auppocmq (Sappho 141.1) < *n-mrt(cf.Homericppoxoq,

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 borrowingfromIndo-Iranian*wrd6. oxpoxov(Sappho 16.1; Alk. 372.1, 382.2), and oxpoxocyoi
(7GXII.2 5, etc.);propernames<*str-toThe firstfiveall showa labialenvironment,
butaxpoxovis good evidence
fora regulardevelopment
of*r> po/op.57
The evidenceforBoiotianand Thessalianis verythin.Boiotianhas
andIxpox-in propernames,whichseems
onlytwoforms:e-aoxpoxet>-a9r|
tobe good evidencefora regularchangeof *r> po.The otherformis found
in thepropernameswiththerootBpo%-x>XXo<;>
etc.,thoughpropernames
arealwaysuncertain.
There arealso onlytwoformscitedforThessalian,and onlyforEast
Thessalian at that,which shows Bpo^ix;as a propername and rcexpoand so may
exeipi8a,'periodoffouryears/Botharein a labialenvironment
indicatea conditionedreflex,
thoughwe cannotbe sure,and it is doubtful
thatTcexporeallycontinuesan unalteredzero-grade.58
55. The changes in Arkadian and
Cyprianpoint to the latter.
56. For basic accounts,see Lejeune
1972, pp. 195-198, 199-202; Sihler
1995, pp. 92-96, 95-98. The original
conditionsdetermining*r> po/op
probablydepended on root shape and
accent,but the patternhas been so
disturbedby paradigmaticand analogical levelingin both directionsthatwe
cannot recoverthe rules.Further,there
appear to be no good cases of */in
Lesbian, Boiotian, or Thessalian.
57. The othercases cited by Hamm

(1957, p. 28, 57.1), Scherer(1959,

p. 19, 236.1, pp. 54-55, 245, p. 87,
255.2b), Schmitt(1977, pp. 70, 75,
80-81), and othersare eithernot from
*r,are uncertain,or are phantoms.So
inf.Tporcf|v
(Alk. 70.9) is not necessarily
but is
zero-gradeaor. (Att. tpotrceTv)
So too
likelyto be fromxpoTceco.
Poprixai(Sappho 96.17) does not equal
papeuai, but is from(3opacobuilt to
popd. yponnaxa (Balbilla) is a hyperAiolism, and shows the dangersof the
interventionsof the Alexandrian
regularizes (cf.Alk. 129.27 yeypd.f,

etc.). The
ypdrcxa,
epigraphicypdqniv,
formscited fromthe grammariansare
withoutidentification,
even if their
etymologieswere certain.So Hsch.
k 3669 (Latte): Kopxepd-Kpaxepd,
ia%upd;\i.1679 uopvd|ievo<;uaxouevo<;.The sometimes-cited8poaeco<;
and 7tTopuo<;
are foundonlyin the third
anonymousCompendiumKepiSiaXeKxcovattributedto JohannesGrammaticus (ed. Hoffmann1891-1898, vol. 2,
pp. 215, 221).
58. Further,althoughJiexpomight
continuedirectlya *kwetwr-,
the

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

447

In sum,thechangeof *r> po/opis notcompelling,

since*ris a rather
stablesoundin Greek(therearecleartracesofitssurvivalin thescansion
of Homer), and the same (or at least a similar)changeoccursin ArkaAs Cowgillnotes:"Atmostone can say
dian,Cyprian,and Mycenaean.59
thatthe contrastof op and ccpis notveryimportant
forgroupingGreek
V > po/pcc
dialects."60
To putthematterdifferently,
is a comparatively
late
in
various
Greek
dialects.61
there
seem
to
be
no
cases of
Further,
change
*r> po/opfeedinganylatersoundchangesharedbyThessalian,Boiotian,
and Lesbian.
Dativepluralin -eooi. The new dativepluralsin -ecci have caused
They are foundnotjust in Lesbian,Boiotian,and Thessalian,
difficulty.
butalso in Pamphylian,
and in varietiesof Doric (Delphian and Lokrian
in Kyrenaian
in the north;Elean in thePeloponnese),plus outcroppings
from
Lakonia
via
and
Corinthian
colonies
Thera)
(but not at
(colonized
Their presencehas been usuallyexplainedby an "AiolicsubCorinth).62
still
whichis hardtojustifyforthePeloponnese,moredifficult
stratum,"
In fact,thecreationof
and nextto impossibleforKyrene.63
forPamphylia,
-eaai dativesis an easyanalogicalchangethatoccursin variousdialects,
and as suchis valuelessas a basisforgrouping.64
Perfect
participlein -cov,-ovr-.A strongercase can be made forthe
of a participleformantin *-o-nt-forthe inheritedperfect
substitution
whichis foundas fullparadigmonlyin Lesbian,Thessalian,
*-wos-/*-us-y
This is a bitmysterious,
and Boiotian.65
especiallysincethemiddleis kept
to theperfectroot.Chantraine
with
-menattached
directly
unchanged,
and
it to the influenceof the presentmeaningof the perfect,
attributes
of
Doric and theinflection
certainformswithpresentendingsin literary
theperfectas a presentin Syracuse,Karpathos,and Knidosareprobably
sinceit is not
due to this.66
However,thisfactis almostalwaysmisstated,
is
inflected
thesame
infinitive
as
well
that
the
but
the
perfect
just participle
60. Cowgill1966,p. 82.
61.Therearetracesofthe*rstage
> *petrow-es
in Homer://.16.857:ovrcoxuov
yoocooa
(Skt. catvdras)> *petwores
where
Kai iipr|v,
Aircova'
seenin Myc.
withthesamemetathesis
avSpoxfjxa
ElseRuijgh(1995,pp. 85-91) andWest
spellingkwetorwes.
qe-to-wo-rey
whereThes.showsonlyIxpaxo-(<*str(1988,p. 156) areright:thescansion
beforetheepenmustreflect
*anrtdta>
to-)in names.These,however,
mightbe
thesisof-nr-> -ndr-,seenalreadyin
The handinfluence.
duetoAttic/koine
= *6tv5pidvxei
cite'Epoxo-icAiaq
bookssometimes
Myc.a-di-ri-ja-te
ofa man'
with
the
Dialektder
'[inscribed]
figure
(e.g., Sammlung griechischen
<
of
a man/
similar
and
forms,
-ocvxoq
<xv8pid<;,
569.20)
'figure
Inschriften
=
instrumental
butthisis notthedirectoutcomeofa
pl.a-di-ri-ja-pi
<
So
PGrk'r^rh-to- > PGrkepoc-xo-.
*dv8piau-(pi*dv8piavx-(pl. *h2nir
> *anros>
butgenitive
Boiot.likewisehas a namein'Epox-Ccov. > dvf|p,
*h2nr-6s
59.This is one ofthemainreasons
(Sihler1995,p. 212, 224).
dvSpoc;
takeAiolicandArka- Also//.14.78 (verseinitial)vkdpporn
whysomescholars
sub-branch (lx). This clearlyisjusta spellingat"Akhaian"
an
as
do-Cyprian
ofGreek:e.g.,Hoffmann
duppoxri
1891-1898,
temptto accountfora v\)
thatdoesnotscan(cf.theusualending
vol.1,p. vii;Chadwick1956,pp.39a vb
vx>Q.This reflects
duppoairi
41; 1975,p. 810. Fora reviewofthe
>
*r
durxa
considers
data
that
(< *n-mr-to-).
po/op
Ark.-Cyp.
62. Buck1955,p. 89,107.3;Morlabial
on a preceding
as conditioned
w-)yseeMorpurgo1968.
purgoDavies 1976.
(specifically
to
of-tw-pointsrather
development
oftheordinal*kwetw6res
theinfluence

63. Finkelberg
(1994,p. 19; 2005,
pp. 129-130),themostrecentto revive
ofPamtheidea,makesno mention
orWyatt's1973
Kyrenaian,
phylian,
the
demolishes
whicheffectively
article,
notion.
64. See MorpurgoDavies 1976for
themechanism.
Wyatt1973,p. 39:
"Thereis no needto assumean Aeolic
in orderto explainthespread
substrate
ofthe
ofthishighlyusefulallomorph
dativeplural."Ruijgh(1996,pp.486from
487) seesitas a simpleborrowing
withCorintheneighboring
dialects,
itsreplacement.
thianlaterreplacing
65. Lesb.:masc.taA,d6-cov,
neq>x>yyetc.;fern.
cov,yevov-ovxa,
jcap-eaxaKThes.:masc.
oiaav; inf.xeOvaK-riv.
erc-eoxdic-ovxa,
etc.;inf.eaA,oi)K-e-uev.
dn-eiA,8e{Boiot.:masc.dv-xe-9e(-ovxa,
inf.
attested.
etc.
No
ovxec;,
pf.
66. Chantraine
1961,pp. 184-185,
211,p. 278, 329.

HOLT

448

N. PARKER

Since theperfectactivemovesin lockstep

wayas in thethematicverbs.67
withtheaoristactive,I suspectthattheanswerlies in thethirdsingular,
wherea proportional
analogycouldbe establishedbetweentheaoristand
the perfect:ekin-e : Xin-dw: : XeXaQ-z: X = XekaQ-tov.

in variousformsofDoric
We findsimilarperfectthematicinfinitives
East
Island
Doric:
(Crete,
Kos, Nisyros).There is an
Argolis,Phokis,
at
isolatedthematicperfect
participle Kyrene,and Delphi showsa similar
butconfined
formsintheinfinitive,
andin theparticiple
spreadofthematic
tothefeminine.68
but
This is thestrongest
evidencefora sharedinnovation,
thefactthatotherdialectssuccumbto thetemptation
of thematicforms
fortheperfect
weakensthecase somewhat.69
m = jiia. What thehandbooksusuallypresentas thesole lexicalitem
Aiolic,ia intheplaceofuiocfoundin otherdialects,is theresultof
defining
paradigmatic
leveling.There arethreepointsto bearin mindabout'one':
1. Though it is sometimesnotclearfromthehandbooks,we havea
fullparadigmof elq,10c,
ev (to givetheLesbian forms).That is,
thefeatureis notreallya lexicalitemat all,buta morphological
one.70
2. A modelfromwithina paradigmof 1110c,
etc.,is hardto
jLLiaq,
GarciaRamon
and
for
justify.
Ruijgh, example,thoughtthat
theu- of uiochad beenlostsomehowto bringtheparadigm
intoalignment
withthevowelinitialeiq and ev.But thereis no
proportional
analogicalmodel;Atticand otherdialectshaveno
with
theirregular
to see
problem
paradigm;and it is difficult
whyan attemptto regularizethepatternwouldstopthereand
notproduce,forexample,elq,tea, ev.71
- thatwe havethefeminineof
3. The othercommonexplanation
an ioq meaning'thatone/foundin theGortynLaw Code and
a fewotherplaces- willnotdo.72The formis foundonlyin the
feminine(no fioq attestedforLesbian,etc.),and it is clearlynot
thematic(no fia, ti&v).73
The answer,therefore,
is phonologicaland thebasicoutlinewas given
Schmidt.74
We
are
longagoby
dealingwitha paradigmthathasbeenexten> 6\ioq)
*som-d-s
sivelyremodeled.The PIE root*sem(as in Latin semely
had an originalrootnounparadigmwithmasculine*sem(extendedgrade)
recharacterized
as *sems,75
and a proterokinetic
devi feminine,
withfull67. Hodot 1990, p. 159: "Au parfait,
de la finale
Tadoptionpour l'infinitif
'thematique'-tivest correlativede remploi du suffixe-ovx-pour le participe."
68. Thumb and Kieckers 1932,
pp. 166, 181, 202, 275-276; Buck 1955,
p. 199, 147a; Schmitt1977, p. 48.
One needs to be preciseabout the dialects in which finiteformsof the perfectare inflectedlike the present,and
those in which the infiniteformsare
inflectedlike thematics(presentsand
aorists).
69. There is a similarspread of the

aor. -nt- to the perf.part,but onlyin

the ace. sing,and pl. in Tocharian. See
Adams 1981.
70. Attestations:Lesb. masc. elq
in [ejia-raiekoiaxos (7GXII.2 82,
line 17), etc.; fern.ot>8' lav (Sappho
56.1; scansion uncertain),uri8eia
(7GXII.2 82, line 12).Thes. fern.ace.
iav (IG IX.2 6, line 12); neut. ev (SEG
XXVI 672, line 50). Boiot. masc. ace.
eva (DialectorumGraecarumExempla
485.43); fern.gen. taq (SEG III 359,
line 10); neut.gen. evo<;(ArchDelt2, A'
[1916], p. 218, line 34).

71. Garcia-Ramon 1975, p. 65;

Ruijgh 1991, p. 601 (and cf.p. 674).
72. Chantraine 1999, p. 466, s.v.io<;.
Sihler (1995, p. 405, 389.1Aa) takes
io<;as built directlyto the pronomial
stem**-,seen in Lat. is, ea, id.
73. The singleHomeric nonfeminineformicp(neut.) is an in-house
creation.See Ruijgh 1991, p. 601.
74. Schmidt 1898; see also Gippert
2004.
75. Giving us the usual paradigm:
masc. nom. *sem-> *sems> *hens(evq by
OstofFs Law) > his (ei<;by the Second

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

449

TABLE 1. DEVELOPMENT OF PROTOINDO-EUROPEAN *sem-ih2

and
Remodeling
Reduction
Proto-Indo-European
(nom.)*sem-ih2
(gen.) *sm-yeh2s
(dat.) *sm-yeh2-ey
(ace.) *sem-ih2-m

Proto-Greek

>
*sm-ih2
*sm-yeh2s
>*syeh2s
*sm-yeh2ey
>*syeh2ey
>
*sm-ih2-m

*smiya
> *iyds
*syds
> *iydy
*sydy
*smiyan

Pan-Greek
uia
> Horn.if|q
i<x<;
ia > ip
jiiav

These
and a zero-gradegenitive*sm-yeh2s.
grade nominative*sem-ih2
wereremodeled(withthe zero-gradeof the rootgeneralized)as *sm-ih2
vocalizedto *smiya(the usual deThe nominative*sm-ih2
and *sm-yeh2s.
*hmiato *(m)miatobecome
velopmentin Greek),and thispassedthrough
The obliquecases,however,
the familiaru(oc(see belowfor*sm> mm).76
was simplified
ranintotrouble.The initialconsonantclusterof *smyeh2s
not
to
Siever
s Law),77
so
PIE
sound
to
subject
change *syehs(and
by a
The intervocalic
whichthenbecameGreek*syds.
developmentof -sy-is
>
We expectan initial
to -yy-(*nas-yo-> *nayyo,
xoTo,
etc.).
vocico,
*tosyo
the
vocalize
which
would
to
(following usualright-to-left
*syds give*yydsy
of PIE *sem-ih2
The
etc.78
iterative
rule)as theattestedi&<;,
development
is summarizedinTable 1.
Each dialectthenregularizedthe paradigmof uia, iaq, ia (and so
in
on) itsownway.Most generalizedtheformofthenominative,
creating
jiia, uxaq,butLesbian,Thessalian,and Boiotiangeneralizedtheoblique,
The
Lengthening).
Compensatory
masc.andneut.,too,haveundergone
Myc.showstheorileveling.
paradigm
the
butall otherdia-mof
root,
ginal
lectshavespreadthe-n-ofthenom.
> *he-> *sem-ds
andneut.So gen.*sme's
mos(seeninMyc.e-me= hemeidat.)->
bends(evoq);neut.nom.ace.*sem> ev.
afterCRy
76. Forthedevelopment
cf.*trih2>
(Skt.patnt)>
xpia;*potn-ih2
> e-Tipia-xo
(cf.Skt.
Tcoxvia,
*e-kwih2n. 80;
See
Peters
132,
1980,
kri-td-).
p.
is
best
This
162.
2004,
p.
Gippert
viewedas thenormaldevelopment
to Siever'sLaw; see Schindaccording
ler1977,p. 57; Peters1980,pp. 127132,esp.p. 132,n. 80; Ringe2006,
showsthesame
p. 16.Armenian
> mi'one'(Darms
changein *smiya
Peters
1980,p. 132,n. 80).
1976,p. 13;
77. ForSiever'sLaw,see n. 76,
above.A similarlossofnasalis seenin
'stone'(collective
'sharp')but
*h2e'km6
>
dsmanVedic
(stem),
gen.*h2k-mn-es
with
ds'nas
161,
2004,
p.
(gen.)(Gippert
in
versusthetreatment
references),
> Semxoq.
> 8eica,*dekmt-o-s
*dekmt
This lawhelpsaccountfora puzzling

ofthepronouns:
detailoftheinflection
butdat.*tosm-ey/
nom.*so/*seh2/*tod>
As Ringe(2006,
*tosy-eh2-ey/*t6sm-ey.
has
beensuspected
notes:
"It
55)
long
p.
thatthe-sm-ofthemasc.andneut.sg.
is a reducedformof 'one.'. . . If thatis
true,itshouldfollowthatthesyeh2thecorreofthefern.
sg.formsreflects
thefact
ofthenumeral;
spondingfern,
*-m-hasbeen
thattheroot-final
thansyllabified
might
droppedrather
an earlierpre-PIEphonothenreflect
(inwhichcasethisinlogicalsystem
wouldbe veryarchaic),orthe
flection
clustermightsimplyhavebeenreduced
Schmidt(1898,
byallegrophonology."
tietheformant
p. 399) did notdirectly
demto thewordfor'one,'butcorrectly
See also Szethephonology.
onstrated
1996,p. 206; Gippert2004,
merenyi
esp.pp. 156,161,nn.6, 22,25; Hackstein2005,p. 178.
78.That is,thereis no needto invokeLesbianpsilosisto explainthe
see Lejeune1972,
form.For-sy-> -yy-,
of
pp. 132-133,127. A development
>
ruled
out
seems
to
*hiby
*yy- *yithefactthatitviolatestheusualvoca-

lizationrule(clearlystatedbyRinge
a hypotheti2006,pp. 15-16). Further,
wouldhaveto be createdfairly
cal *yids
latewithinGreekitselfto escapethe
of*y-> C,-(theunusualdevelopment
conditioned
outcome),sinceh-develis
from
ops only
*Hy-.This difference
in
orincorporated
notfullyunderstood
Rix1992,one ofthe
mosttreatments.
unfortumostup-to-date
handbooks,
reversed
the
situation
has
nately
(pp.60, 70, 68, 80); see Peters1976
fordetails.PIE contains(as farI can
find)onlyone lexemewith*sy-:*syuH'sewn,'syU-ma
'sew,'Skt.syu-td'strap.'
withrough
In Greekwe havex>\ri\v
butall Greekwordswith
breathing,
initiald haveroughbreathing
(thereabutitmaybe a regular
sonis unclear,
change;Lejeune1972,
phonological
pp.280-281,320; Sihler1995,
p. 173). HereI suspecta lossofy simiandLat.
larto thatseenin Vedicsutray
subula'awl',thatis,a regular
suo>sutusy
(loss)beforeu in Greek.
development
Schmidt(1898) explainedtheinitial
he
vowelbythetypeofepenthesis
> *iyds.
>
so
for
io9i,
posited
*syds *isyds

HOLT

45O

N. PARKER

creatingioc,iaq.79Again, agreementon paradigmlevelingis not good

evidenceforsubgrouping,
sincethespreadoftheiceformsno moreunites
and
Boiotian
thanthespreadoftheuiocformsunites
Lesbian,Thessalian,
and Doric.
Attic-Ionic,Pamphylian,
branchof
To sumup so far,Aiolic appearsto be a veryconservative
it
does
not
for
the
sound
Greek,distinguished
undergo.
changes
primarily
In fact,Aiolicunderscrutiny
thana relicarea,and
appearslessa subfamily
Rischcouldfindno sureisoglossseparating
AiolicandWestGreekbefore
ca. 1200 B.C.80
within
Divisions
Lengthening

Aiolic:

The First

Compensatory

We can go further.
Ratherthana unity,
Aiolic is splitbyone oftheearliestGreeksoundchanges,theFirstCompensatory
Lengthening(1CL).81
This is Hainsworth's
no. 4 (see above,p. 444), withthetellingpoint"not
a poorcandidatefora definingqualityofAiolic.
Boiotian,"and therefore
A properformulation
of the FirstCompensatory
Lengtheningis crucial
to understanding
thedevelopmentof the Greekdialects,and so requires
a certainamountof space. Those whose eyes glaze over at linguistics
(but have stuckwithme so far)maywish to skipthe followingdetailed
The importantfactto be bornein mindis thatthe forms
presentation.
attestedin Lesbian and Thessalianwithdoubleresonants(e.g.,Lesbian)
theoriginal
Pan-Greek
Boiotian,
represent
stage;all otherdialects,including
haveundergonea laterchange,theFirstCompensatory
Lengthening:so
Boiotianand Doric oeA,otva,
and Attic-IonicaeA,f|VTi.That
is,once again,
LesbianandThessalianaredistinguished
notbyan innovation
butmerely
bya failureto undergoa changeseenelsewhere.
The presentations
in mosthandbooksare necessarilyscatteredand
failto captureseveralgeneralrules.The basic sequenceof eventsin the
FirstCompensatory
was thata resonant+ sys + resonant,
or
Lengthening
resonant+ y all becamedoubleresonants
in all dialects,butthenin certain
dialectsVRR > VR, whichone can viewas a compensatory
lengthening
or a simpleshiftof mora/assimilation.
More precisely,
a vowelis lengthenedas a resultof thesimplification
of a followingnonpalataldoubleresonantcluster.82
In brief,VRR > VRy
79. Forthisoriginalparadigm
with
nom.u(ot,gen.ia<;,see Schmidt1898;
Peters1980,p. 132,n. 80 (crediting
Eichner);Meier-Briigger
1992,vol.1,
Hackstein
60;
2005,
p.
pp. 178-179,
whoshowsthesamedevelopment
in
TocharianA si andTocharianB sana.
This analysisdiffers
somewhat
from
thatofMeier-Briigger
(1992,vol.1,
p. 60) andGippert(2004,pp. 162163),whostartwithfreeLindemanns
Law variants
withintheparadigm
I *sm-iyeh2s,
which Meier*sm-yeh2s
Briiggersees as developingto h(i)yds
(with*smy> *sy)I *(m)midsy
respec-

The resulting
ia<;(withLesbian
tively.

thenformanalogical
psilosis)and uux<;
nominatives
ictand uia. Lindemanns
Law variants
withinGreekaredoubtandwe expectthePGrk
ful,however,
>
to followthepattern
*syds
o*dyiws
Zevq, *dyem> Zfiv(a).

80. Risch1955,p. 71.

81. So calledbecauseitprecedes
boththeAttic-Ionic
changeofa > r\,
andtheSecondCompensatory
whichappliesto new
Lengthening,
(orunchanged)
groupsof-ns-.The
formulations
ofBlumel(1982),as
themostcomprehensive
treatment
ofAiolicto date,deserveseparate
consideration
andcannotbe pursued

here.Unfortunately,
someofhisrules
forthesoundchangesareproneto
as a resultoftheuseofa
error,
partially
framework,
synchronic,
generative
whichdoesnotdistinguish
between
andlater,dialectical,
Proto-Greek
soundchanges.He failsto capturethe
oftheFirstCompengeneralization
andhiscomsatoryLengthening
(pp.78-79,95-96,
plexexplanations
108-109) callforseveraldifferent
rules,nonewithouttheirdifficulties,
whichin factproduceincorrect
forms.
82.This formulation
of1CL is based
on thatofmyteacher
WarrenCowgill
1967).Though
(modifying
Kiparsky

THE

LINGUISTIC

CASE

FOR THE

AIOLIAN

MIGRATION

451

Figure3. Chartofthedepalatalizaclusters
tionofresonant
in cases of mm> m>nn > nyrr> r,//> /,and ww > w, but notin cases of
*yyor *IT (whichcomesfrom*/yand laterdepalatalizesto XXonlyafter
This changeis foundin all GreekdialectsexceptLesbian
1CL is over).83
andThessalian,whichmerelyretainthePan-Greekstage.84
There arethreesourcesforthesenew doubleresonantclusters:
> RR (eitherbymetathesis
1. *Rs/sR> *hR/RA
or simpleassimilation).
2. A depalatalized-RR- from-Ry-.ForRy > R'R',whathappens
nextdependson theprecedingvowel.If thevowelis non-high
and back (i.e., as unpalatalas possible),namelya or o, then
a new diphthongis created:*ann > ayn,*oriri> oyny
i.e.,*ri
merelyloses itsnasalityand turnsintothehomorganicresonant
*n is depalatalized.Similarly*arY > ayr>
y, and theremaining
*orY> oyr.But ifthevowelis highor frontft,eyu)>thenR'R!
depalatalizes> RR and eitherstaysinThessalianand Lesbian
or elsewherefeedstheFirstCompensatory
Lengthening(see
two
treatto
note
that
these
It
is
3).
differing
Fig.
important
mentsof R'R' arepresentin all dialectsand so arePan-Greek.85
Lesbian andThessalianalone of Greekdialectssimplymaintain
theresulting
-RR-,butBoiotianshowsthecompensatory
long
vowels.86
an outlinecanbe
neverfully
published,
foundin Cowgill1969 andin Crist
counter2001,pp.76-77.The putative
ofRR,
clusters
examplesaresurface
mostofwhichareeasilyexplained.
ofhR
Manyarefromthetreatment
in quasi-initial
position:#sR-> hRspelledFH, PH, etc.,whencetherough
>
> *hpofo<;,
on p-.So *srdwos
breathing
Horn,pooq(povq).In quasi-initial
posilateenoughto
tion,hR-is stillpresent
(at morundergoa secondary-change
to -RR-,butonly
phemeboundaries)
>
afterthe1CL is over.So: *srew-o> peco,
etc.Note
butmxappeco,
*hrewothatseveralsuchformsin Homerare

corthephonologically
likelyto reflect
> eppeov;
so:*e-srew-on
rectPGrkreflex;
> uei5-idco
but(piA,oun.ei8r|<;
*smeydfondofsmiles'(Sihler1995,pp. 170171,171). The otherclassofputawouldbe derivativecounterexamples
> ypa\L\iaf
etc.
tivessuchas *Ypd(p-n.<x
that
Thereis goodevidence,
however,
unassimilated
thesegroupscontinued
untilsurprisingly
late;so,e.g.,Ion.
from*GT<p-ua;
dissimilated
eoxe6uevoi
cf.Hsch.axe9|iaxa axe^jxaxa(I owe
thisexampleto Don Ringe;see Scherer
1959,p. 263). ewea, ofwhatever
remodelsource,showsconsiderable
ingfromPIE *newn.

83. *fy> *IT > U in all dialects.So

too*wyand*sy> *yyin all dialects.
84.The stateinMycenaeanis,of
to tell.
course,impossible
85.This changemakesitclearthat
in
beendepalatalized
stopshad already
PGrk.We neverfindanyvowelumlaut
PGrk
orthelikebeforetheputative
ofcc,etc.,thatSihlerreconclusters
structs
(1995,p. 192,198),though
similarmayhavebeena
something
whichthesound
mid-stage
through
changepassed.
86. Garcia-Ramon1975,pp.44-46,
5.3.1.

HOLT N. PARKER

452

3. The thirdsourceis thegroup*-ln-(closelyrelatedin articulation),

whichbecomes-//-(cruciallynotpalatal).87
Note in particular
that*-In-> -II- feedingtheFirstCompensatory
Lengthenas a reductionof
ingmeansthatthelaw mustbe formulated
RR and notsimpleloss ofsyhyory.Though somescholars
havequestionedthechangeof*/n> -II-ytheevidenceis clear.88
Mycenaeannicelyattestsa stagewhere*-/n-had already
assimilatedto -//-(theevidencefor*-rs-y
*-ry-is cloudedbythe
spellingsystem).89

outcomesoftheFirstCompensatory
Examplesofthediffering
Lengthare
for
the
first
source
(sR):
ening
-sm-

> *esmi> *ehmi> PGrk emmipreservedin Lesb. ejifii,

*h1es-mi
Thes. euui,butBoiot. euxin thearchaicalphabet,Att.-Ion.
ejii laterspelledeiui (withtheso-calledspuriousdiphthong).
In Cretanand othertypesofDoric,wheree and T|wereat the
sameheight,thenewlongvowelsarethesame as inheritede
and 6 and so spelledf|ui.
*ns-'we' (cf.Germ,uns,Eng. us) in ace. *ns-me> *asme>
PGrk *amme,
in Lesb. aji^ie (withLesb. recessive
preserved
but
Boiot.
and
Dor.
aue. In Att.then*amme> *dme
accent),
> fine-.90
> uoTpoc,
> euuope
*smer'appoint':0-grade*smor-ya
pf.*se-smor-e
> *hehmartai
(Horn,withLesb. psilosis)butpf.pass.*se-smr-tai
> *hemmartai
(RR) > Att.hi2martai
(1CL) = duapTai. pf.pass,
>
*se-smr-men-on
Lesb. euuopuevov,
butAtt.eiuapuevov
part.
(1CL).91
87. Lejeune1972,pp.153-154,152.
88. See,e.g.,Sihler1995,pp.212are
213, 224.2b.Surfaceexceptions
dueto analogyandlaterrecomposition,
a
e.g.,7uA,-vaui.
Slings(1975) provides
clearoverview
ofthestages.See below
forexamples.
Not all commonly
offered
evidenceis secure,however.
The only
formSihlerdiscussesis arr|A,T|,
whichis
usuallytakenas from*stel-/*stl'equip,'

(Bartonek
2003,p. 146).Myc.doesnot
indicatedoubleconsonants.
normally
Much dependson theinterpretation
of
thero2and ra2signs:ro2spellsetymo=
in thecomp.a-ro2-alogical*ryo
aryoa< *aroha< *ar-yos-a(cf.ap-iato<;),

etc.,andsecondary
(syncopated)
-ryo= 7cop(p/6p(i)o(;,
=
mpo-pu-ro2
tu-ro2
rop(i)ov,dim.'littlecheese,'as wellas
=
secondary
-lyo-inpi-ti-ro2-we-sa
> *stalnd> Lesb. aiotMxx,
so *stl-neh2
of
(no example primary
ptilyo-we(s)sa
Dor.axdXa,Att.(5rr\kr\.
Risch(1974,
in
lyo-).ra2spellsetymological
*-ryamostcases,butspellsetymological
*-rsp. 110,39f) had alreadyderivedit
= *ager-safrom*sth2sleh2
in thefirst
aor.a-ske-ra2-te
'stand'),withthe
(*stf>2-slasuffix,
seenin Lat.
nt-es> *agerhantesl*
infrequent
(cf.3.
agerrantes
*
> scdla.However,
=
*skand-sla
to
a-ke-re
cf.
pointing
sing.pres.
ageryeil*
agerrei;
*stl-nais Old Saxonstollo,
Lesb.dyeppco,
butAtt.dyeipco).
showing
Again,
boththezero-grade
andan /z-stem.
an *agersantes
wouldbe spelledfa-kea
connection
with
the
sa-nt-es
the
Further,
The
though
by usualconventions.
rootfor'stand*
is appealing,
the
has
been
taken
as
spellingboth
ra2sign
semantics
arelessattractive:
-slarY andrr,butthisis unlikely,
sincenot
formant
appearsto be an instrumental
onlyis a separatesignfordouble
consonants
in LinearB,
('thatbywhichone climbs').
unparalleled
- 6(peMxov/6(peAxov, buta signforrra(Ila,rro,116)necessar89. So o-pe-ro
sincean *6<peA,vcov
wouldbe spelled
overa syllable
break
ilyextending
violatestheprinciples
ofthesyllabic
bytheusualconventions
fo-pe-no

The likeliest
writing
system.
explanationis thatoriginalsignsforrya/Iya,
andryo/lyOy
whether
fromprimary
or
continued
(<
etc.,
secondary
*rya *riya)>
tobe usedevenwhen*ryahadbecome
-rra-,etc.,andso wasusedfornewrra
from*rha< *rsa,in a waysimilarto the
use oftheAttic"spurious
diphthong."
See Bartonek
2003,pp. 105-106,146147,fortheevidence.
90. A goodexampleof1CL preceding(feeding)theAtt.-Ion.changeofa
> t|.The newroughbreathing
seenin
Art.,Boiot.,andDoriccomesfrom2.
is recharacpl.\)ue-.In Att.this*f|ueterizedwiththeace.pl. endingfiue-cx<;
> fjuaq(Sihler1995,p. 380,369).
91. NotethatGrassmann's
Law
ofaspirates)
doesnot
(dissimilation
*hR>
apply,thatis,theassimilation
RR precedesGrassmann's
Law,which
againshowsthatwe arenotdealing
withthemerecompensatory
lossofh
butthesimplification
ofdouble
resonants.

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

453

-sn-

> cpdoq> (pcoq)> Lesb. cpdewoq,

butBoiot.
(cf.*phawos
*pbdwes-nothe
Boiot.
Odevoq(laterOdevvoq,following
collapseofthe
Ark.Oocr|va.
diphthongs),
"
'shiner'> Lesb. aeAxxwa,butBoiot.,Dor. oetaxva,
*selas-nd
Art.-Ion. G6Xf|VT|.92
-sw*nas-wo-s'dwelling'(cf.*nas-yo> vaico) > *nawwds> Lesb. vawq,
> Art.vecoq
Ion. vi\6<;
butwith1CL: Lak. votpoq> Boiot.votoq,
metathesis).
(withquantitative
and so on:
For -Rs- therearenumerousexamplesin j-aorists,futures,
-h-

> *arjgelTd
but
(in all dialectsand so not 1CL) > dyye^Xco
*arjgel-yo
>
Boiot.
but
firstaor.*ayyeX-aa Lesb.,Thes. dyYeAAd-uevoq,
Art.inf.dy/eTAm
(1CL withhighvowel).
dyyei^auevcoq,
-nsbutBoiot. ueivdxco,
*men-sa-> Thes. part.gen.pl. cruu-UwdvT-oi)v,
Art.eueiv-e.
Thes. ueiw-oq;in the 1CL
*mens-os:
gen.'month'> Lesb. UT^vv-oq,
dialectsthelengthening
appliesvacuouslyto thelongvowel,but
the
show
RRyso: Boiot. ueiv-oq,Art.uriv-oq.93
simplified
they
The -nn-formsshowthatRs musthavepassedat leastto Rh
(> RR) beforePan-GreekOstoffs Law applied.
It is especiallyimportantto note herethatthe FirstCompensatory
Lengtheningis cruciallyorderedafterthe changeof sonant*r> pa. So
>
> Tpotpcov
> *trarron
> *trahron
*tfs-ro-Hon'possessingfear'> *tfs-ron
TpT|pCOV.94

therearemanyexamplesin Lesbian(though
Forthesecondsource,Ryy
fewerattestedin
aftera/o:
Boiotian).For thetreatment
> *gwann6>
> *gwany6
(Lat. venio)> PGrk *gwamy6
*gwm-y6
Pan-Greekpaivco.
> *hmorYa> Pan-Greekuoipot.95
*smor-ya
*

ghr-ye-> *k*ar-ye-> kharYe-> xccipei.96

But aftere:
> *awerYo> Pan-Greek*awerro,
whichremainsin Lesb.
*awer-yobut > Boiot.,Art.deipco(1CL).
deppco,
92. The initiala- is an old and unsolved problem,possiblyinfluencedby
linguistictaboo.
93. Att. back-formsnom. uf|v.Ion.
shows originalnom. *mens> *mens
(OstofFs Law) > ml2s= |iei<;by the
Second CompensatoryLengthening.
94. A furtherexample is suggested
by Lejeune^ derivation(1972, p. 122,
('head,' 'in
115) PGrk *krs-ro-s
> Kepva)
*kers-na
full
cf.
grade
charge,'
> Att. va\>-Kpapo<;
> *krarros
> *krahros

> v<xi>-kA,tipo<;.
However,see Nussbaum
1986, pp. 24, 167, 221, 244-245, forthe
*
>
preformof PIE krh2s-r-6-> *krdsro
>
with 1CL
*krdrro -Kpapo^ > -icA,T|po<;,
applyingvacuously.
95. The comparative*ar-yos-a
(cf.dp-iaxoq),Myc. a-ro-a (*aryosa>
*aryoha> *aryoa)[see above, n. 89],
seems to show thatMyc. is stillat the
before
stage of*aryo-/*arYo-/*arro-y
the diphthonghas formed(i.e., we have
a-ro2-a aryoaand not the expected

'
fayro-spelled presumablyt a-ro-a or
the like). The problemis thatthe expected faipcovdoes not show up anywhere.Instead we have Att. dpeicov
with some typeof extensiveremodeling
(Sihler 1995, p. 362, 354.4b). A similar recombinationmightalso account
forthe Myc. form.
96. Again cruciallyorderedafter
*r> ap but before1CL, which it
bleeds.

HOLT N. PARKER

454

Figure4. ChartoftheFirstCompensatoryLengthening
*kten-yo> *kteririo> Pan-Greek ktenno,remains in Lesb. Kievvo),but
ktt|vcoDor., KiewtflAtt. (1CL; not attestedforBoiot.).
Compare afteri:
*krin-yo> *kriririo> Pan-Greek krinno,remains in Lesb. Kpiwco >
KpivcoAtt. (1CL; not attestedforBoiot.).
For the thirdsource, -In- clusters,there are excellent examples from
inheritedand remodeled nasal presents:
> Lesb.
PIE *h3bhe'l'owe' formsa Greek nasal present*opbe/-nobut
Doric
and
and
Boiot.
Att.-Ion.
ocpeMxo,
6(pt|Xco,
ocpeiAxo
(1CL).97
> *gwole-(a regularmetathesis) in
PIE *gwelh3'will,wish/ *gwe/oArk., Cyp., Pamph., and West Ion. p6A,oum;with a nasal infix
> *gw/-no->
remodeled to a full-grade
pres. *gwl-ne-h3-/*gwl-n-h3on the thematic root present.98This in turn
*gwe/no-/*gwolnoshows 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
Slings1975.Fortheinitiallaryngeal,
> <p^-ov
cf.aor.*e-h3bhl-e/o(Myc.
and
the
o-po-ro)y
neg.vco(peA,T|<;
(Myc.
Beekes1969,pp.56,225no-pe-re)\
256.Theseverbscannotreflect
-Resincethiswouldresultin
presents,
-XXin all dialects,
andtheonlyother

phonologically
possiblesourcewouldbe
in *-se/so-,
a suffix
whichis impossible
tojustify
orsemantimorphologically
see Slings
cally(i.e.,a desiderative);
1975,pp.3-4: "I failto see howanywouldbe
bodyinwakingcondition
ableto terma verbmeaning
'towish'a
'desiderative.'"

98. Fortheshapeoftheroot,see
Sihler1995,pp.498-500,453-454;
Rixet al. 2001,p. 17.
99. NoticethatBoiotiansharesthe
as well;pcuA.fi,
Doric -grade
etc.,are
builtdirectly
to theverb.See Rixet al.
2001,pp.208-209.

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

455

in Greekwithsecondary^-grade
*wel-'roll/PIE *w/-new/nu-y
butDor. fr\ke.(oy
Att.ei^eco(1CL);100
*wel-new-> Lesb. eXXeco,
cf.thezero-grade*sm-wl-nes'rolledtogether'> Lesb. aoXfoy;
( with*/> ol and Lesbian psilosis),and thezero-gradeadv.in
(Hsch. a 2761 [Latte]).The ^-gradeform&AAt|<;
ot^avecoq
> *hawelles>
is attestedat //.3.13 and underlies*sm-wel-nes
to
Att.
(with1CL) contracting
aki\q.
*aeikr\q
The sourcesand outcomesof the FirstCompensatoryLengthening
aresummarizedin Figure4.
The Position

100.Rixetal.2001,p.675.
101. See Garcia-Ramon
1975,p. 70,
6.2.1,whoputsitdownto a Boiotian
ofgeminates.
Although
simplification
he saysthechangecannotbe dated,he
nonetheless
placesitafterca. 1125,the
datehe proposesforBoiotiansplitting
offfrom"proto-thessalien"
(p. 110).
102.1 canfindno examplesofthe
FirstCompensatory
Lengthening
in Boiotian(but
to *r> po/op
applying
formsareveryfew).
thepo/op
103.Hainsworth
(1982,p. 862)
explainsitbysayingthat"thegeminationofliquidsandnasalswas toolate
thatis,he takesthe
to affect
Boeotian,"
>
of
*sn
-nn-,
etc.,to be a late
changes
Lesbian-Thessalian
affair,
failingto see
thatitis in factProto-Greek.
for"West
104.The usualmarker
Greek"is the1. pl.endingin -ue<;.It is
statedthatBoiotianshared
sometimes
-uevwithLesbian,buttheendingis
beforethespreadofkoine
notattested
(Scherer1959,p. 18).Thessalianhas
onlya singleexample(-uev),fromLarissa (DialectorumGraecarumExempla

590.13)datingto 214 b.c. Lesbianattests-uevin thepoetsbut,understandexamples.

ably,thereareno epigraphic
105.Garcia-Ramon
1975,p. 80,
basingthedateon thefactthat"les
andles historiens
archeologistes
s'accordent
pourdaterca. 1000la
andciting
dite'eolienne,'"
migration
we
Here
69.
Desborough1972,p.
base
see thedanger:archaeologists
of
theirdateson thereconstructions
whobasetheirdateson the
linguists,
ofarchaeologists.
reconstructions

of Boiotian

as a laterand independentchangeof
difference
Explainingthisstriking
VRRto longvowelplusR withinBoiotianafterit splitofffroma ProtoThe examplesoftheFirstCompensatory
Aiolic cannotwork.101
Lengthin
come
onlyfromProto-Greek-RR- clustersand there
ening Boiotian
are apparentlyno cases of any secondarysourcesfordouble resonants
That is, a laterBoiotian rule should apply
undergoingthis treatment.
forexample,shouldgivefa^oq; the new
withoutexception,and dtXkoq,
> Uekonow^Goq,shouldhavegiven
as
such IlekoKoc-vx\oo<;
assimilations,
etc.
trietamcbvTiGoq,
Further,since the First CompensatoryLengtheningcuts Boiotian
all the otherfeaturesthatare said to
offfroma putativeAiolic family,
Aiolic thephonologicalchangesof*Kwe> Pin all positions,
characterize
ofdativepluralin -eaai, perfect
innovations
*r> po/op;themorphological
- musthavebeen
=
in
ioc
uia
-cov,
-ovx-,
earlyand
exceptionally
participle
This is not a conhave precededthe FirstCompensatoryLengthening.
anditseemstobe ruledoutbythefactthattheFirstComvincingscenario,
pensatoryLengtheningis cruciallyorderedafterthechangeof*f> po/op
in otherdialects.102
The conclusionseemsto be clearthatBoiotianbelongsto a different
whichdo notundergo
groupofGreekdialectsthanLesbianandThessalian,
No earlyisoglossesseparateit
the FirstCompensatoryLengthening.103
fromWest Greekuntilthe innovationof labiovelarsto dentalsbeforee
branchof
We mayviewBoiotianthenas a conservative
marksoffDoric.104
a
from
Doric, althoughnothingpreventsBoiotian
being separatebranch
of Greekaltogether.
Other

Claimed

Subgroupings

of Aiolic

The departureof Boiotianleavesjust Thessalianand Lesbian. Is it possible thatat least thisgroupsomehowformsa family?Again,thereare
and I see no evidenceforThessalianand
no securelysharedinnovations,
Lesbian havinganycommonancestorotherthanProto-Greekitself.
ofthequestion,holds
Garcia-Ramon,in themostdetailedtreatment
thatBoiotiansplitofffroma Proto-Aiolic,whichhe rathertendentiously
laterLesbian migrated
and thatabouta century
labels"proto-thessalien,"
There are problemswith thisview,however,
from"thessalo-lesbien."105
and he himselfrightly
pointsout thatthelackoftheFirstCompensatory
andThessalianis not a reasonto groupthetwo
in
Lesbian
Lengthening

HOLT

456

N. PARKER

sincethisis merelya retainedarchaismfromtheCommonGreek

together
of
-RR-.106
As evidenceofa sharedperiodofdevelopment,
he points
stage
His
to a numberofcommonnewfeatures
ofgreater
orlesserimportance.107
> *metsos
bestevidenceis the changeof *-ts-> -ss-(e.g., PGrk *metA-yos
> uggo<;)in bothThessalianand Lesbian,versus*-ts-> -tt-in Boiotian
However,the group*-ts-is quite stablein thevariousdialects,
(uTTO<;).
and thesame*-ts-> -tt-l-ss-variationis foundin Atticand theIonic of
Euboia and Oropos (vs.therestofIonic), and in Cretan(vs. otherforms
of Doric).108Boiotianinnovatesby showinga progressive
assimilationof
the retained*-ts-> -tt-,but *-ts-> -ss-in Thessalianand in Lesbian is
theregressive
assimilation
common
simplya case ofparalleldevelopment,
in mostGreek,109
and nota sharedinnovationimplyingan originalunity
ofThessalianand Lesbian.110
Garcia-Ramonsothercases are shakierstill.He claims a common
ofa consonantal
development
y fromi betweenrorafanda vowelin hiatus
{riV > ryV)}n First,notethata ruleapplyingonlyto r and d is difficult
to motivate.Second,thedata showno paralleldevelopments.
Lesbianhas
two
cases:
only
special
1. diV- > *dyV-> ty-ywordinitiallyonly,in 8id > d,and in
in thepoets,
Aiowuooq > Zowoaoq. These formsarefrequent
buttheinscriptional
formis 8id.112
This palatalizationis not
uncommonand showsup in Phokaiaand Cyprusas well.
2. A limitednumberofcases of ri > ry> rr,buttheseareoftwoori>
so rcepi-oxoq
gins.One is bylate syncopein thepreverbrcepi-,
theinscriptional
(= Att.7tepi-e%oi)oa);
jceppoxoq,
*7tep<p>e%oio'
is alwaysrcepl.113
The otheris foundonlyin the
form,however,
propernamenpiocuoq> Ileppauoq(Alk. 42.2, besidea metriIlepauoq,Sappho 44.16) and themonthname
callyconvenient
xS Ayeppavto)
This
ufiwoq(late3rdcentury)= Aypiavioq.114
>
to
a
rule
*CriV>
(*C9rr'V->
points
possible
whereby
*CryVwitha palatalr thatthencolorsan anaptyctic
vowel) > CerrV-.
In all othercases -ri-is retained.115
106. Garcia-Ramon 1975, pp. 4446, 69, 5.3.1, 6.2.1.
107. Garcia-Ramon 1975, pp. 8191.
108. The -ts- stage is retainedin
Cretan untilquite late (spelled -- in
older inscriptions):Schmitt1977, p. 52,
no.5.M.12.
109. The situationof Boiotian is
more complicatedthan is commonly
presented.It is usuallysaid thatoriginal
*T+s > -tt-in Boiotian and Cretan
Doric. However,Boiotian shows the
Proto-Greekchange of *t-s> -ss in
finalposition;so *wanakt-s> *wanakss
> F<xvax<;
(Buck 1955, p. 227, no. 37.4).
Boiotian
shows -tt-onlyin
Further,
morphologicallytransparentcases:
kouiS-gcx-(aor.) > koijaxx[t|,
etc. It is
hard to believe thatthe dat. pl. was ever

*pod-si> fnovtiin Boiotian. It seems

more likelythat*-t+s-> -ss- is general
Greek and then -T-s- was restoredin
Boiotian in j-aorists,etc.,where it then
underwentthe laterBoiotian regressive
assimilationto -tt-.See Garcia-Ramon
1975, p. 84.
110. Furthermore,
Thessalian is less
uniformthan usuallypresented.GarciaRamon (1975, p. 83) correctlyrulesout
the propernames Koxxixpot;,
Ooutto*;,
etc.,as of uncertainetymology.However,the veryname of the Thessalians,
foundin BoioIlexOaXoq(< OeTTaA,6<;,
tian,beside Att. GeoaaXoq, and so indiattestedat both
catinga labiovelar*gwh),
Larissa and Kierion,and Gdtaxxxa,
rcixxa,cited as Thessalian, point to the
presenceof -//-formswithinboth
Pelasgiotisand Thessaliotis. Proper

names are oftenanomalous and the

etymologiesproposed by Heubeck
(1984) and Weiss (1998, pp. 56-61),
are not withoutdifficulties.
I doubt
thatthe ethnonymis Indo-European.
111. Garcia-Ramon 1975, p. 82.
112. Also 8id in Sappho 1.12;
Sappho vel Alk. SLG S276(l), col. 2,
line 17. mp8ia > mp^a is cited by
Etym.Magn. 407.21 as Aiolic (not specificallyLesbian as sometimesstated),
but thisis of littlevalue.
113.Hodotl990,p.l50.
114. The grammarianscite as Aiolic (again, not specificallyLesbian)
uexeppoqforuixpux;,Korceppafor
for
Korcp(a,and possiblydA.A,6xep(p)o<;
For a fulldiscussion,see
dA,A,6xpio<;.
Hodot 1974, pp. 126-128.

115.Hamm1957,p. 25, 52.

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

457

showsa fullsetof doublepalatalconsoThessalian,on thecontrary,

nants.The new*-yV-(< -iV-) palatalizesand duplicatesnotonlypreceding resonantsbut stopsas well (examplesonlyfor/,d, n, s, and the rule
maybe confinedto dentals),whichare thenspelledwithor withoutan
=
-1-to indicatethepalatalization.Examplesinclude,for-r(V)y-:KVppov
=
for
Kt>ppiov,
dpyvppoi(gen.sing.) dpyupioi); -l(V)y:noXXioq(gen.sing.)
= rcoAaoq;
for-t(V)y-:e^amixioi = e^aicooioi;for-d(V)y-:i88iav,vc8iav
= rcpo^evuov;
= i5iav;116
for-n(V)y-:Tcpo^evviow
for-s(V)y-:eKKtaiooia
'
We clearlyhavea late ruleof [R, T] > {R'R, T T] I
besideyvuaaaov.117
withLesbian.
_y and thechangeis nota sharedinnovation
For sharedmorphological
changes,Garcia-Ramonpointsto datives
in -eaai, althoughthisis also Boiotian(and foundelsewhere;see above,
concludesthatthisis an innovationin Boiotian,but
p. 447). He rightly
can implynothingabouta supposedperiodof
failsto see thatit therefore
To thishe addspatronymics
sharedchangesinThessalianand Lesbian.118
in -eioq,adjectivesofmaterialin -loq,andtheeGriicav
typeofaorist,though
all ofthesearecommonGreek.Boiotianinnovatesbyshowingthespread
besidethe
ofthe-K-formsto thethird-person
pluralaoristdv-e-0i-K-ocv
a featurenotfoundin Lesbian orThessalian.
new analogicaldv-e-Ge-ocv,
The mistakeagainis to treata retainedfeaturein twodialectsas ifitwere
a sharedinnovation.
verbsinLesbianandThessalian,
ofcontract
The athematic
conjugation
but notin Boiotian,is sometimesclaimedas a commoncharacteristic.119
Hock and Garcia-Ramon,however,rightly
rejectit as a sharedinnovaand Cyprian;second,
in
Arkadian
is
found
the
same
tion.120
First,
pattern
in
but
are
found
forms
theathematic
only Pelasgiotis notinThessaliotis.121
butthemostimportant
The dataarecomplicated
bya numberoffactors,122
factis thatthe familiarAtticclass of contractverbsis a verymixedbag
Forthe-dcoverbs,
bothathematicand thematicformations.123
continuing
theprincipalsourcesarethefollowing:
suchas
in *-h2-builtto thematicadjectives,
1. athematicfactatives
->
*new-e-h2-mi ved-co'makenew,renewa fieldbyplowing';
suchas xiudo)
builtto a-stemfeminines,
2. thematicdenominatives
to xi|if|.
116. The roughbreathingis anomalous.
117. See Blumel 1982, pp. 55-56,
64, fordetails,thoughhis rule (under
64.4) of -Vrys-> -VrYs > Vss>Vs/_C
is betterexplainedby simple syncopation followedby assimilation.
118. Garcia-Ramon 1975, p. 84.
119. E.g., Buck 1955, p. 148, 202.4.
The data are exhaustivelyexaminedby
Hock (1971); however,the resultsare
vitiatedby the factthathe believed that
a+e contractto e ratherthan a, and by
his incompleteunderstandingof the
verbalsystemof PIE.
120. Hock 1971, p. 514; GarciaRamon 1975, pp. 71-72, 6.2.3.
121. See Scherer1959, p. 69, for

discussionof the forms.

122. These are as follows:in the literarytexts(Sappho and Alkaios),
(a) the usual vagariesof transmission,
(b) the tendencyof Hellenistic editors
to impose a uniform"Aiolic"color; in
inscriptions,(c) the paucityof attestation in both Lesbian and Thessalian; in
all texts,(d) the formsare verylimited
since in Lesbian at least,the 2. sing,
and 3. sing,have been extensivelyrebut
modeled so thatwe findcp(X.r|jxi,
so
yduei (and
Aajtctic;,
indistinguishable
fromregularthematiccpepei);(e) furthermore,only a veryfewformsgive
clear evidence,since manyof the forms
imin -a-yas well as manyinfinitives,
middles
and
peratives,subjunctives,

could be the resultof regularthematic

contractions(e.g., apduai could be
fromathematicapa-uou or equally
fromthematic*&poc-o-uai).Bliimel's
attempt(1982, pp. 76-77, 168, 172173, 88, 182, 187) to explainthe apparentlythematiccpi^ei,etc.,by regular
phonological developments(beginning
with a typeof Kiparskysmetathesisof
-e-ti > *-eyt> *-ei > *-ei) founderson
inheritedathematictCBtigiin Lesbian
(so thatwe should expectt<P&TiGi)and
the factthat,whateverits origins,the
thematicending in -ei is Pan-Greek.
123. For an overview,see Sihler
1995, pp. 513-514, 462.1; pp. 521524, 468-469; see also Ringe 2006,
pp. 28-29.

HOLT N. PARKER

458

Thereareevenmoresourcesfor-ecoverbs:
1. athematicstativesin *-eh2made to zero-gradeCaland roots,such
-> ep-oGe-co
> y\to\\i\
->
as *h1rudh-eh2-mi
'be red'; *bhil-eh2-mi

cpiXeco;
in -e-yo-y
2. thematicdenominatives
builtto thematicnominals,
> oiiceco;
suchas *woik-e-ydin -eyo->
3. thematiccausative/frequentatives
withtherootoftenin
> (popeco;
the0-grade,suchas *bhor-eyo4. plainthematicsbuiltto stemsendinginy, wyor s (whichthen
disappearsbetweenvowels),suchas *srew-o-> peco;
5. thematicdenominatives
in -yo-builtto s-stems,suchas *teles-yo> teleyyo> xe^eico,laterxe^eco.124
In short,all thedialectshaveamplematerials
tobuildanalogicalforms
and to regularizethevaryingparadigms.Most dialects(includingThesbutArkadian,Cyprian,
saliotis)havechosenthemorenumerous
thematics,
of
athematic
forms.Lesbian
Lesbian,andPelasgiotisshowvarying
spreads
showsinherited
stativeslike<p(A,Tiiu,
besidedenominatives
likeoikt|ui,and
iterative
causativeslike<popf|ue0<x;
butforthelasttwocategoriestheforms
remainthematic,e.g., peovxoc,
and numerousattestations
of
7U7i^eovTa,
formsof xeX,eico.125
That is, at the time(s)the old thematicswererecast
as athematics(at leastin some of theirforms),pecoand xeXeico
werestill
in theformof*pep-co
and *xetayy-co.
The Thessaliandata showonlynine
formswithclearathematicinflection,
but Sie-aoccpei-uevoc
seemsto point
to thespreadof athematicformsto *-es-yoverbsas well.126
Equally,any attemptto link the mainlanddialects,Thessalian and
Boiotian,as a subgroupdoes notwork,eventhoughtheyaretheonlypair
to whicha versionof a dialectgeographyapplies.127
Not onlyareThessalianand Boiotianseparatedby the FirstCompensatoryLengthening,
Of thethreefeatures
theyshareno commoninnovation.
commonlylisted
in handbooks,128
ThessalianandBoiotianti(mediallyandfinally)
is merely
retainedfromProto-Greek,
whileLesbianundergoesa latersoundchange
to si.129
The spreadof theathematicinfinitive
endingin -jievto thematic
stems(e.g.,(pep-e-uev)is foundlatein Boiotian,butinThessalianapparwhiletheotherpartsofThessaly
entlyonlyin Pelasgiotisand Perrhaibia,
show*-e-en> -en.mIn short,the further
awayone is fromBoiotia the
morethethematic-e-uevseemsto flourish.
That thecreationofsuchnew
formsdoes notindicatesharedancestry
is shownbyCretannpofeut-e-uev.
Greek
inherited
a
wide varietyof infinitive
formants
and created
Rather,
stillmore;whichof themwerechosenor generalizedvariesgreatlyfrom
dialectto dialectand providesno firmbasisforgrouping.131
124.Possibleexplanations
ofKaAico,
etc.,andthepurelyGreek-6-classare
outsidethescopeofthispaper.
125.Forthedata,see Blumel1982,
pp. 172-178,187-191,pp.222-223,
236; Hodot 1990,pp. 192-198.
126.Lesbianevepyei-e-VT-eoai
besideThes. e\)epYex-e-<;
in
the
(< *-nt-s)
derivedcompoundis unlikely
to representa directly
inherited
-es-yo->

butsimply
AtticevepyeTTn;,
euep-eyyoto thenewpatterns.
Yeteco
subjected
127. See,e.g.,Rodrigues
Adrados
1956.
128.Buck1955,p. 148,204,who
notesthatonlyone,thethematic
inf.in
"whichis Homeric,belongsto
-men>
theAeolicelements
ofthesedialects";
Schmitt1977,pp. 75-78.
129.Cowgill1966,p. 80; Schmitt

1977,p. 76. See above,p. 443,n. 45.

130.Buck1955,p. 122,155.1;
Garcia-Ramon
1975,p. 66, 6.1.8;
Schmitt1977,p. 77,no. 18. Blumels
to explainawaythethematic
attempt
formsis notconvincing
(1982,pp.208210, 223-224).
131. See thelistin Buck1955,
153. See Cowgillsclearre122,
p.
markson principles
ofgrouping:
1966,

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

459

The bestcandidatefora sharedinnovationis a puzzlingchangeconwhere0 showsup in theplace

finedto thethird-person
pluralverbendings,
for
of x,so -v0ifor-vxi,-v0cofor-vxco,
-v0T| -vxai,and -a0rifor-ocxou.132
Garcia-Ramon assumesthe change is commonAiolic and explainsits
Ionic influence.133
absencein Lesbianbythefamiliarmoveofpostulating
we
have
a
case
of
Rather, clearly
analogicalspread,althoughthelocus is
dates
beforeboththedecipherment
ofMyuncertain.
The usualexplanation
wherea hypothetical
cenaeanandtheriseoflaryngeal
theory,
third-person
>
then
threw
its
*senti
which
*henti,
anomalously
aspirationbackto
plural
createev0i,fromwhicha new -0i endingwas abstracted.134
However,no
suchformexisted.The PIE rootbeganwiththe^-coloringlaryngealand
> *ehenti,
the originalGreekformwas *t>1s-enti
nicelyattestedin Mycecorrectin locatingthe
Blumelis almostcertainly
naeane-e-si= efijensi.135
sourcein a secondaryassibilationo(-(n)ti- thatspreadbyanalogyin the
to assignsucha secondarypalatalizationto
It is difficult
verbalsystem.136
in eitherBoiotian
a proto-Aiolicstageand theprocessis farfromuniform
and
case ofdialectborrowing,
orThessalian.This seemsa straightforward
the same formsare foundin NorthwestGreekat Steirisin Phokis,over
thepass throughMt. Parnassos.137

CONCLUSIONS
thedialectsalonga
databyarranging
We mightsummarizethelinguistic
on theleftandthosewitha greaternumber
linewiththemostconservative
of significant
changeson theright:
Thessalian| Lesbian | Boiotian | Doric | SouthGreek
SouthGreek(Mycenaean,Arkadian,Cyprian,Attic-Ionic)sharesthe
> ss > sywhileBoiotian,Doric,and the
earlyassibilationofti > si and *t(b)y
historicaldialectsof SouthGreeksharetheFirstCompensatory
Lengthto be
and
Lesbian
Thessalian
consider
we
In
this
lineup, might
ening.
us
to
that
view.
but
relatedconservative
Rather,
dialects, nothingcompels
to their
itmightbe betterto arrangethemin a linecorresponding
roughly
geographicpositionin historicaltimes:
Thessalian| Boiotian | Doric | SouthGreek | Lesbian
dialectsappearnot
the two mostconservative
In thisarrangement,
and thefar
as relateddialectsbutratheras relicareasin thefarnorthwest
can be used withanyconfidenceto
northeast.
However,no arrangement
dialectgeography.
reconstruct
prehistoric
the
Attic-Ionic,
p. 83. So, forexample,
Lokrian
of
northern
part Thessalian,
Greek),Corinthian,
(Northwest
Megarian,andRhodian(Doric) all sharethe
inf.in -e-en,whileArkadian
thematic
andmostoftherestofDoric show-en
to thestem.See Sihler
addeddirectly
1995,p.608,552A.l.a.
132.Blumel(1982,pp. 155-158,
theevidence.
171-173) surveys

133. Garcia-Ramon
(1975,pp.65en
"On hesiterait
66, 6.1.7) writes:
principea rangerce traitparmiles traits
notingitsabsencein Lespaneoliens,"
ofPhokianforms.
bianandthepresence
134. Schulze1933,p. 399; followed
byScherer1959,p. 39, 237.14;Blumel1982,p. 156,n. 148; Schmitt1977,
(1975,
p. 71,no. 15. Garcia-Ramon
to see an analogyfrom
p. 65) prefers

-ueBa,-o0e,butno proportional
analogycanbe made.
135.Fordetailsandfurther
complications,seeSihler1995,pp.548-549,492.
136.Blumel1982,pp. 155-158,
beside
171-173. Cf.MeA,dve-io<;
MeA,dvT-ac.
137. Schwyzer
1939-1953,vol.1,
Garcia-Ramon
1975,
p. 353,A.18,43;
p. 66.

460

HOLT N. PARKER

In conclusion,ascribingthe presenceof speakersof Lesbian in the

ofAiolic tribes
northeast
Aegeanduringhistoricaltimesto themigration
frommainlandGreecereceivesno supportfromlinguistics.
Migrationand
invasionare not the onlyor even the mostlikelymechanismsbywhich
languagesand dialectsspread.No solid evidencespeaksfora spread(by
whatevermeans)fromtheGreekmainlandto theTroad,ratherthanthe
fromthe
otherwayaround,or forbothThessalianand Lesbian arriving
north,or forbothdevelopingin situ.
the idea of an Aiolic dialect
Furthermore,
upon close examination,
itself
falls
Boiotian
is
an
archaic
dialect,mostcloselyrelated
group
apart.
to West Greek,whichunderwentthe FirstCompensatoryLengthening
butretained*r (withlaterindependentchangeof *r> po) and thelabiovelars(withthe defaultchangeto labials),and whichunderwent
various
laterminorchangesof its own. Lesbian and Thessalianare both archaic
branchesofGreekthatdid notundergotheFirstCompensatory
Lengthcommoninnovations,
and nothingarening.Theyshareno demonstrable
betweenthem.They are bestviewedas two relic
gues fora relationship
areasof a relatively
unalteredearlyGreek.
ofLesThessalians,
Boiotians,andAioliansproper(i.e.,theinhabitants
bos and theadjacentpartofAsia Minor) werenotpartof an Aiolic tribe
or dialect;theyweresimplyvariouspeopleswho wereseen to be neither
Dorians norIonians.138
In theabsenceof anyarchaeologicalor linguistic
evidenceforsuch a group,we are betteroffavoidingthe term"Aiolic"
altogether.

of
138.Cf.thesensibleremarks
citedon p. 433
MeyerandGschnitzer
andin n. 7, above.One consequence
is thatthewholetopic
ofthisresearch
in Homerneedstobe
of"Aiolisms"
reexamined.

THE

LINGUISTIC

CASE

FOR

THE

AIOLIAN

MIGRATION

461

REFERENCES
Adams, D. 1981. "The Pre-Historyof
Tocharian PreteriteParticiples,"
in Bono Homini Donum: Essaysin
HistoricalLinguisticsin Memoryof
J.AlexanderKerns,ed. Y. L. Arbeitman and A. R. Bomhard,Amsterdam, pp. 17-24.
Ahrens,H. 1839-1843. Degraecae linguae dialectis,2 vols., Gottingen.
Aikhenvald,A. Y., and R. M. W.
Dixon, eds. 2001. Areal Diffusion
Problemsin
and GeneticInheritance:
ComparativeLinguistics,Oxford.
Bartonek,A. 2003. Handbuchdes
Griechisch,
Heidelberg.
mykenischen
Beekes, R. S. P. 1969. TheDevelopment
LarynoftheProto-Indo-European
geals in Greek,trans.T. S. Preston,
The Hague.
Bellwood, P. 2001. "Early Agriculturalist Population Diasporas, Farming,
Languages, and Genes," Annual
Review ofAnthropology
30, pp. 181207.
. 2005. FirstFarmers:The OriSocieties,Oxgins ofAgricultural
ford.
Blumel,W. 1982. Die aiolischenDialekte:PhonologieundMorphologieder
Texteaus generativer
inschriftlichen
Sicht(Zeitschriftfurvergleichende
Erganzungshefte
Sprachforschung,
30), Gottingen.
Bryant,E. 2001. The Questfor theOrigins ofVedicCulture:TheIndo-Aryan
MigrationDebate, Oxford.
Buck, C. D. 1955. The GreekDialects:
GlosGrammar,SelectedInscriptions,
sary,2nd ed., Chicago.
Cartledge,P., ed. 2002. The Cambridge
IllustratedHistoryofAncientGreece,
Cambridge.
Chadwick,J. 1956. "The Greek Dialects and Greek Pre-History,"GaR
3, 2nd ser.,pp. 38-50 (repr.in The
Language and BackgroundofHomer,
ed. G. S. Kirk,Cambridge 1964,
pp. 106-118).
. 1973. "Discussion" to V. I.
Georgiev,"The Arrivalof the
Greeks in Greece: The Linguistic
Evidence,"in BronzeAge Migrations
and Linin theAegean:Archaeological
in
Greek
Problems
Prehistory,
guistic
ed. R. A. Crossland and A. Birchall,
London, pp. 254-255.

. 1975. "The Prehistoryof the

Greek Language," in CAH3 II.2,
Cambridge,pp. 805-819.
Chantraine,P. 1961. Morphologiehistoriquedu grec,Paris.
. 1999. Dictionnaireetymologique
de la languegrecque,Paris.
Chapman, J. 1997. "The Impact of
Modern Invasions and Migrations
on Archaeological Explanation,"in
Migrationsand InvasionsinArchaeologicalExplanation (BAR-IS 664),
ed. J. Chapman and H. Hamerow,
Oxford,pp. 11-20.
Chapman, J.,and H. Hamerow. 1997.
"On the Move Again: Migrations
and Invasions in Archaeological
Explanation,"in Migrationsand InvasionsinArchaeological
Explanation
(BAR-IS 664), ed. J.Chapman and
H. Hamerow, Oxford,pp. 1-10.
Greece,
Coldstream,J.2003. Geometric
900-100 B.C.,2nd ed., London.
Coleman, R. 1963. "The Dialect Geographyof Ancient Greece," TransactionsofthePhilologicalSociety,

pp.58-126.

Collis,J.2003. The Celts:Origins,Myths,

Inventions,Stroud.
Cook, J.M. 1975. "Greek Settlement
in the Eastern Aegean and Asia
Minor,"in CAW II.2, Cambridge,
pp. 773-804.
Cowgill, W. 1966. "AncientGreek
Dialectology in the Light of Mycenaean," in AncientIndo-European
Dialects,ed. H. Birnbaumand
J.Puhvel,Berkeley,pp. 77-95.
. 1969. "On Resonant Clusters
in Ancient Greek,"MeetingHandbook,44thMeetingoftheLinguisticSocietyofAmerica,pp. 22-26
(abstract).
Crist,S. 2001. "Conspiracyin HistoricalPhonology"(diss. Univ. of
Pennsylvania).
Crossland, R. A. 1973. "Linguisticsand
Archaeologyin Aegean Prehistory,"
in BronzeAge Migrationsin theAeand Linguistic
gean:Archaeological
Problemsin GreekPrehistory,
ed. R. A. Crossland and A. Birchall,
London, pp. 5-15.
Darms, G. 1976. "Urindogermanisch
*semi,"MunchenerStudienzur
35, pp. 7-32.
Sprachwissenschaft

HOLT

462
Desborough, V. 1972. The GreekDark
Ages,London.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1997. The Rise and
Fall ofLanguages,Cambridge.

M. 1994."The Dialect
Finkelberg,
ofAncientGreek,"
Continuum
//SCP96,pp.l-36.

. 2005. Greeksand Pre-Greeks:

and GreekHeroic
AegeanPrehistory
Tradition,Cambridge.
Garcia-Ramon,J. 1975. Les origines
postmyceniennes
dugroupedialectal
eolien(Minos Suppl. 6), Salamanca.
. 2002a. "Aeolic (Lesbian)," in
Brills New Pauly 1, cols. 231-232.
. 2002b. "Greek Dialects," in
Brills New Pauly2, cols. 1011-1018.
Gippert,J.2004. "Ein Problem der
indogermanischenPronominalflexion,"in Perasperaad asteriscos:
in honorem
Studia indogermanica
JensElmegdrdRasmussen(InnsbruckerBeitragezur Sprachwissenschaft112), ed. A. Hyllestedet al.,
Innsbruck,pp. 155-165.
Gorlach, M. 1987. "Colonial Lag? The
Alleged ConservativeCharacterof
American English and Other 'Colonial' Varieties,"English World-Wide

8,pp.41-60.

Grant,M. 1994. Atlas ofClassicalHistory,5th ed., Oxford.

Grote,G. 1888. HistoryofGreece,4th
ed., 10 vols., London.
Gschnitzer,F. 2002. "Aeolians,"in
Brill'sNew Pauly 1, cols. 226-230.
Hackstein,0. 2005. "Archaismusoder
historischerSprachkontakt:Zur
Frage westindogermanischtocharischerKonvergenzen,"in
und Sprachwandel.
Sprachkontakt
AktenderXI. FachtagungderIndo17.-23.
germanischen
Gesellschaft,
Halle
an
derSaale,
2000,
September
ed. G. Meiser and O. Hackstein,
Wiesbaden, pp. 169-184.
Hainsworth,J.B. 1982. "The Greek
Language and the Historical Dialects,"in CAH2 III.l, Cambridge,
pp. 850-865.
. 1993. TheIliad, a Commentary
3: Books9-12, Cambridge.
Hamm, E.-M. 1957. Grammatikzu
SapphoundAlkaios(AbhBerl1951:2),
Berlin.
Hammond, N. G. L. 1975. "The LiteraryTraditionforthe Migrations,"

N. PARKER

in CAW II.2, Cambridge,pp. 678712.

. 1976. Migrationsand Invasions
in Greeceand AdjacentAreas,Park

Ridge,NJ.

Hausler,A. 1998. "Archaologie,das

Indogermanenproblemund der
Ursprungder Hellenen," in Die
derhellenischen
Geschichte
Sprache
und Schrift:Vom2. zum l.Jahrtausendv. Chr.:BruchoderKontinuitat?
ed. N. Dimoudis and A. Kyriatsoulis,Altenburg,pp. 79-128.
. 2003. Nomaden,Indogermanen,
Invasionen:Zur Entstehungeines
Mythos(Orientwissenschaftliche
Hefte 5). Halle.
Heubeck, A. 1984. "Zum Volksnamen
derThessaler,"in KleineSchriften
zurgriechischen
SpracheundLiteratur,ed. B. Forssman,S. Koster,and
E. Pohlmann, Erlangen,pp. 306314.
Hock, H. 1971. "The So-Called Aeolic
Inflectionof the Greek Contract
Verbs"(diss. Yale Univ.).
Hock, H., and B. D.Joseph. 1996.

Language History,Language Change,

An Introand Language Relationship:
ductiontoHistoricaland Comparative
Linguistics(Trends in Linguistics:
Studies and Monographs 93),
Berlin.
Hodot R. 1974. "Les noms en -Kpdxris,
et -Kepxr|<;
dans Tonomas-Kpexrn;,
tique de Lesbos," Beitragezur
9, pp. 115-131.
Namenforschung
. 1990. Le dialecteeoliend'Asie:
VIIe s.
La languedesinscriptions,
a.C.-IVes.p.C.,Vms.
Hoffmann,0. 1891-1898. DiegriechischenDialekte in ihremhistorischen
mitden wichtigsten
Zusammenhange
ihrerQuellen,3 vols., Gottingen.
James,S. 1999. TheAtlanticCelts:
AncientPeopleorModernInvention?
Madison.
Janda,R. D., and B. D.Joseph. 2003.
"On Language, Change, and Language Change Or, of History,
and
Historical LinguisLinguistics,
tics,"in TheHandbookofHistorical
ed. B. D.Joseph and R. D.
Linguistics,
Janda,Maiden, Mass., pp. 2-180.
Karali,M. 2007. "The Classificationof
the Greek Dialects," in A Historyof
AncientGreek:FromtheBeginningsto

THE LINGUISTIC
LateAntiquity
yed.A.-F. Christidis,
Cambridge,
pp.387-394.
P. 1967."SonorantClusters
Kiparsky,
in Greek,"Language43,pp.619635.
P. 1909."ZurGeschichte
Kretschmer,
dergriechischen
Dialekte,"Glotta1,
pp. 1-59.
LaPolla,R. 2001."The RoleofMigrationandLanguageContactin the
oftheSino-Tibetan
Development
in Aikhenvald
LanguageFamily,"
andDixon2001,pp.224-254.

Lejeune, M. 1972. Phonetiquehistorique

et du grecancien,Paris.
du mycenien
In SearchoftheIndoP.
1989.
J.
Mallory
Europeans:Language,Archaeology,
and Myth,London.

. 1997."The Homelandsofthe
inArchaeology
Indo-Europeans,"

and
and Language 1: Theoretical
ed.
Orientations,
Methodological

R. BlenchandM. Spriggs,
London,
pp.93-121.
J.P.,andD. Q^ Adams.2006.
Mallory,
to ProtoThe OxfordIntroduction
Indo-Europeanand theProto-IndoEuropean World,Oxford.

A. H. 195S.American
Marckwardt,
NewYork.
English,
M. 1992.Griechische
Meier-Briigger,
2 vols., Berlin.
Sprachwissenschaft,
. 2003. Indo-EuropeanLin-

trans.C. Gertmenian,
guistics,
Berlin.
MendezDosuna,J.2007."The Aeolic
Dialects," in A HistoryofAncient
Greek:FromtheBeginningstoLate

ed.A.-F. Christidis,
Antiquity,
Cambridge,
pp.460-474.

Morkot, R. 1996. The PenguinHistoricalAtlas ofAncientGreece,London.

of
A. 1968."TheTreatment
Morpurgo,
rand/inMycenaeanandArcadoCyprian,"in Atti e memoriedel T
internazionalede micenoCongresso

logia(Incunabulagraeca25), Rome,
pp.791-814.
MorpurgoDavies,A. 1976."The -eaai
Datives,Aeolic-ss-,andtheLesbian

Poets,"in Studiesin Greek,Italic,and

to
Indo-EuropeanLinguisticsOffered
LeonardR. Palmeron theOccasionof
His Seventieth
Birthday(Innsbrucker

BeitragezurSprachwissenschaft
16),ed.A. MorpurgoDaviesand
W. Meid,Innsbruck,
pp. 181-197.

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

Morse,M. A. 2005.How theCeltsCame

toBritain:Druids,AncientSkulls,and
Stroud.
theBirthofArchaeology,

Nettle,D. 1996."LanguageDiversity
inWestAfrica:An EcologicalAp15,pp.403-438.
JAnthArch
proach,"
Nichols,J.1997."ModelingAncient
andMovePopulationStructures
mentsin Linguistics,"
AnnualReviewofAnthropology
26,pp.359384.
. 1998."The EurasianSpread
Zone andtheIndo-European
and LanDispersal," in Archaeology
2:
guage Correcting
Archaeological
and LinguisticHypotheses,
ed.

R. BlenchandM. Spriggs,
London,
pp.220-266.
A. J.1986.HeadandHorn
Nussbaum,
in Indo-European,Berlin.

Olender,M. 1992. TheLanguages

of

Paradise:Race, Religion,and Philologyin theNineteenthCentury,trans.

A. Goldhammer,
Cambridge,
Mass.
bePejros,1. 1997."AreCorrelations
tweenArchaeological
andLinguisin
ticReconstructions
Possible?"
and Language 1: TheoArchaeology
reticaland MethodologicalOrienta-

tions,ed. R. BlenchandM. Spriggs,

London,pp. 147-157.
M. 1976."Artisch
hlemi,"Die
Peters,
22, pp. 157-161.
Sprache
. 1980. Untersuchungen
zur Verder
Laryntretung indogermanischen
{SBWien 377)y
gale im Griechischen

Vienna.

and LanRenfrew,C. 1987'.Archaeology

Puzzle
The
ofIndo-European
guage:

463

. 1974. Wortbildung
derhomerischen
2nd ed.,Berlin.
Sprache,

Grammatikdes
Rix, H. 1992. Historische
Laut- undFormenlehre,
Griechischen:

2nd ed.,Darmstadt.
. 1994."LateinundSabellisch,"

Incontrilinguistici17, pp. 13-29.

Rix,H., et al. 2001.LW.Lexikonder

2nd ed.,
Verben,
indogermanischen

Wiesbaden.
Adrados,F. 1952.La diaRodrigues

lectologia
griegacomofuentepara el
estudiode las migraciones
indoeuropeas

enGrecia,
Salamanca.
. 1956."Achaisch,
und
Jonisch,
IGForsch
62,pp.240Mykenisch,"
248.
Fact
Rose,C. B. 2008."Separating
fromFictionin theAiolianMigration,"
Hesperia11,pp.399430.
minora
Ruijgh,C. J.1991-1996.Scripta
ad linguamgraecampertinentia,

2 vols.,Amsterdam.
. 1995."D'Homereauxorigines
de la tradition
proto-myceniennes
du
epique:Analysedialectologique
avec
un
excursus
langagehomerique,
surla creation
de l'alphabetgrec,"
in HomericQuestions:Essaysin PhiAncientHistory,and Archaeollology,

Amsterdam,
ogy,ed.J.P. Crielaard,
pp. 1-96.

Scherer,A. 1959. HandbuchdergriechischenDialekte2, 2nd ed., rev.,

Heidelberg.
Schindler,J. 1977. "Notizen zum SieversschenGesetz," Die Sprache23,
pp. 56-65.

B. 1981."1stein Raum/ZeitSchlerath,
Modellfureinerekonstruierte
Cambridge.
Origins,
Rhodes,R. 2006."OjibweLanguage
Sprachemoglich?"
Zeitschrift
fiir
Shift:1600-Present,"
95,
Sprachforschung
http://lingweb. vergleichende
eva.mpg.de/HunterGathererWork- pp. 175-202.
Schmidt,
(acJ.1898."Das Zahlwortuia,
shop2006/participants.html
cessedJune24,2007);
1'a,"Zeitschrift
fur vergleichende
Ringe, D. 2006. A LinguisticHistoryof
English1: FromProto-Indo-EuroOxford.
pean to Proto-Germanic,

DialectRisch,E. 1949."Altgriechische
MusHelv6, pp. 9-28.
geographie?"
der
. 1955."Die Gliederung
Dialektein neuer
griechischen
Sicht,"MusHelv12,pp.61-76
(repr.in TheLanguage and BackgroundofHomer,ed. G. S. Kirk,

Cambridge1964,pp.90-105).

36, pp. 391-399.

Sprachforschung

R. 1977.Einfuhrung
indie
Schmitt,

Dialekte,Darmstadt.
griechischen
Schulze,W. 1933. KleineSchriften,

Gottingen.
E. 1939-1953.Griechische
Schwyzer,
4 vols.,Munich.
Grammatik,

Sihler,A. 1995. New ComparativeGrammarofGreekand Latin, Oxford.

. 2000. Language History:An
Amsterdam.
Introduction,

464
of
Slings,R. S. 1975."The Etymology
BOYAOMAIandOOEIAQ,"Mnemosyne28, pp. 1-16.
0. 1996.Introduction
to
Szemerenyi,
Oxford.
Indo-European
Linguistics,
1932.
Thumb,A., andE. Kieckers.
Dialekte 1,
Handbuchdergriechischen

2nded.,rev.E. Kieckers,
Heidelberg.
Trask,R. L. 1997. TheHistory
of
Basque,London.
. 2000. TheDictionary
ofHistorical
andComparative
Linguistics,
Edinburgh.
P. 1999."AWindowon the
Trudgill,

HoltN.Parker
University of Cincinnati
department of classics
4IO BLEGEN LIBRARY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 4522I-O226

holt.parker@uc.edu

HOLT N. PARKER
Past:'ColonialLag' andNew ZealandEvidenceforthePhonology
ofNineteenth-Century
English,"
American
74,pp.227-239.
Speech
K. 1997. TheArabicLanVersteegh,
New
York.
guage,
C. 2001."AnIndo-European
Watkins,
AreaandIts CharacterisLinguistic
tics:AncientAnatolia.ArealDiffusionas a Challengeto theComMethod?"inAikhenvald
parative
andDixon2001,pp.44-63.
Weiss,M. 1998."Erotica:On thePreofGreekDesire,"HSCP 98,
history
31-61.
pp.

West,M. L. 1988."The Riseofthe

GreekEpic,"JHS 108,pp. 151172.
Wolfram,
W., andN. Schilling-Estes.
andLinguistic
2003."Dialectology
in
Handbook
The
Diffusion,"
of
ed. B. D.
Historical
Linguistics,
JosephandR. D. Janda,Maiden,
Mass.,pp.713-735.
W. E, Jr.1970."The Prehistory
Wyatt,
oftheGreekDialects,"TAPA101,
pp.557-632.
. 1973."The AeolicSubstrate
in thePeloponnese,"^^594,
pp.37-46.