The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East

I think it's important to take this books in two parts: the parts where the author summarizes the debate over the question "the coming of the greeks" vs. the parts where the author integrates "recent" archelogical finds in support of his particular thesis: That the Greeks were part of a larger migration at about 1600 BCE. To spare you the book itself, the author argues that the Proto Indo Europeans came from the Armenian highlands circa the 2000's BCE, they invented the chariot (a function of their horse knowledge and their wood working abiility) and swept down through the near east FIRST, and then to Greece somewhat later. Which is funny, because in a sense he is restoring the view put forward by the "German" school of Aryan indo europeanism- and we all know where that let!!! I think the need to provide a cogent narrative (the point of writing a book?) somewhat interferes with a good summary of the state of the debate when this book was written. I think it's fair to say that the proto-Greeks were a fusion of a horse rearing culture of the area north of the causcuses with the more sophisticated cultures of the Middle East, but as to the whos and why's- it's really hard to say.

I majored in Ancient History at university a long time ago and this would be the sort of essay required by the professors who always emphasized primary research and pretty much disallowed all else. Most of the material is drawn from existing research in linguistics, archaeology, osteology, and other disciplines taken together to form a likely picture of how the 'PIE-speakers' (the peoples speaking 'proto-Indo-European') came to the Aegean, when, under what circumstances, and why. The material is very scholarly but surprisingly not dry. It has about as much information as anyone (except a specialist!) would want on dialects and sub-dialects and when and how they evolved and where, war chariots, light spoked vs. cart wheels, spear-chucking vs. archers in the chariots, regular bows vs. composite bows, and whether the 'Greeks' came as violent conquerors or 'infiltrators' or who simply moved in and 'took over' existing ruling regimes. The books synthesizes existing research as of about twenty years ago, I just wonder what new findings in these various contributory fields has emerged since then. If anyone can recommend updated reading material, please email me. Altogether a very good book, very readable, and enlightening in a number of respects - not least of which is to demonstrate how the scholars themselves argue various points and theses - some exotic or 'eccentric' - constructively critiqueing each other, and ultimately come to something resembling agreement (or not). My only objection is that the author cites a fair amount of material in his footnotes from German, French, and other language sources, albeit without translation into English. I can read German fairly well so I managed that, but the rest was lost on me.

This is a fascinating look at the development of chariot warfare and an examination of early migrations across Anatolia. These accomplishments are even more impressive when you explore Eastern Turkey and see the formidable geographic challenges these people faced. Several recent proposals (for both the Greeks, and the Israelites) is that mythical ancestral migrations were actually later retellings of the making of nations from people who were already living in those areas.

Extremely interesting attempt to make sense out of the amazing findings encountered at the dawn of history. The author surely succeeds in giving a comprehensive and coherent view on the origins of the Greeks, their unity and differences, linking their arrival in Greece to their mastery of the chariot.Less convincing is his attempt to insinuate the same importance of the chariot to the Proto-Indo-European question as a whole. It wouldn't debilitate his statement at all to recognize the Proto-Greeks as being just on the fringe of the great Indo-Iranian expansion wave, that itself was closely related to the development of the spoked wheel started only about 2000 BC when the main body of Indo-European expansion was already long on its way. This would also account for features in the Greek language that betray close contacts with Proto-Indo-Iranians rather than a common origin. Then the Proto-Greeks only became involved into the - in essence Indo-Iranian - movement a lot later (1600 BC as Drews proposes), after the subsequent invention of the chariot in a continuous tecnological development that was without doubt still spearheaded by certain Indo-Iranian groups.Within the Greek context, however, the book is absolutely convincing and provides for a recommended and easy reading.

Robert Drew begins by presenting an overview of a 100 year old debate "the coming of the Greeks" He then formulates a hypothesis based on the horsed chariot and concludes with an exact origin and time of the people who became Mycean Greece. This book was important to me as a lay scholar because 1) it dismissed the common wisdom of who the Aryans (PIE speakers) were 2) it soberly outlines the state of the art in archaeology and historical analysis -- what facts are important -- how do we know what we know 3) I have a better appreciation for the difficulties and clever hypothesis presented over the past 2 centuries for the origins of Western civilization. I wish it had fewer footnotes, more diagrams, less German - in short, for the lay person and not fellow scholars - however it was still very readable and I enjoyed steping into a cutting edge debate with experts about the origins of Greek civilization, and ultimately, Western heritage.