Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Greeks indigenous?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
RomiosArktos View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 309
  Quote RomiosArktos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Greeks indigenous?
    Posted: 20-Jan-2006 at 20:27
Originally posted by St. Francis of Assisi



We should keep in mind that the Hellenes mixed with Illyrians in Epirus, though recent genetic evidence shows that the Illyrians were there in greater number than the Greeks. The Thracians mixed with the Illyrians to form the Macedonians, who are not Greeks.


The Macedonians were Hellenes,although different in some aspects of their culture from the southern Greeks.This was natural since they were influenced to a certain extent by the barbarians of the north.However they were nothing else but Hellenes.
The Dardani were the product of  the mixture of  the Illyrians and the Thracians.These people lived in the north of Macedon,in the lands of modern-day F.Y.R.O.M.
The Epirots were also Hellenes although there might have been Illyrian minorities.All the noblemen of the Molossi were given the right to participate in the Olympic games while this invitation has never been made to Illyrians.



Originally posted by St. Francis of Assisi


And the Greeks never penetrated into Thracia or Illyria proper (that is, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia, and Albania).


This is wrong.Greek culture penetrated in the region of Thrace since the age of Phillip,king of Macedon and even earlier when Athenians founded colonies there.

Originally posted by St. Francis of Assisi


The Albanians are the descendants of the Illyrians, and are thus not Greek.

Who said that the modern Albanians are Greeks??
The Albanians are descendants of some mountainous illyrian tribes.Not of all illyrians in general.
Back to Top
Ellinas View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Ellinas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jan-2006 at 15:53
I believe Albanians are a mixture of Illyrian tribes and tribes came from the east (Caspian sea coast) during Ottoman era. 
Back to Top
Amedeo View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 18-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 57
  Quote Amedeo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jan-2006 at 22:59
.


Edited by Amedeo
--Amedeo the Magna-Graecian
** Veritas, Justitia, Pulchritudo, Amoenitas **
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2006 at 10:24

I agree with you that Greek was first from [or proto-Greek was first formed out of] the Fertile Crescent. (I have used the term "Levant" but I will be more specific in forthcoming posts).

I would like to see your proof that "proto-Greek first formed out of Fertile Crescent"; and I need to point out that "Fertile Crescent" and "Levant" are nearly exclusive terms.  The only common denominator is that they both include the easternmost Mediterranean coast (i.e. the coast of ancient Phoenicia, Israel, and Philistia).

Back to Top
Theodore Felix View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 769
  Quote Theodore Felix Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2006 at 10:57
I believe Albanians are a mixture of Illyrian tribes and tribes came from the east (Caspian sea coast) during Ottoman era.


I thought it was from the revolt of Maniakes during the 11th century?
Back to Top
dorian View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
  Quote dorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2006 at 12:39

Macedonians were Greeks (greek name, greek language, greek religion) who used to live in Macedonia along with Illyrians, Thracians and other tribes who were the minority.

Albanians are probably the descendants of the mixture between the Albanians from Caucasus and Illyrians.

"We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM
Back to Top
chicagogeorge View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 05-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 207
  Quote chicagogeorge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jun-2007 at 19:10
^^
Speaking of Greek names, here is just a sample of names used by ancient Macedonians and the Greek terminology of the name.
 
 
 
The few non-Greek names found in Macedonia are mainly Thracian and Phrygian. There are NO names which have been attributed to some mysterious Macedonian ethnicity.

Knowledge of the language is very limited because there are no surviving texts that are indisputably written in the language, though a body of authentic Macedonian words has been assembled from ancient sources, mainly from coin inscriptions, and from the 5th bclexicon of Hesyuchius of ALexandria, amounting to about 150 words and 200 proper names. Most of these are confidently identifiable as Greek, but some of them are not easily reconciled with standard Greek phonology. The 6,000 surving Macedonian inscriptions are in the Greek Attic dialect.

The Pella Curse Tabler, a text written in a distinct Doric idiom, found in Pella in 1986, dated to between mid to early 4th bc , has been forwarded as an argument that the ancient Macedonian language was a dialect of North-Western Greek, part of the Doric dialects (O. Masson, 1996). Before the discovery it was proposed that the Macedonian dialect was an early form of Greek, spoken alongside Doric proper at that time (Rhomiopoulou, 1980).

 
 
Don't forget that the Macedonians used Greek terminology for the regions and cities within Macedonia (though not in the Koine/Attic gloss, nor in the Ionian dialect, and thus cannot be associated with any Hellenization).  
 

Pre-Philip II:
  • Upper Macedonia
  • Ancient Name:                   Modern Location:        
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    ORESTIS                         Kastoria province, Greece       
    TYMPHAEA                        Grevena province, Greece        
    ELIMEIA                         S. Kozane province, Greece      
    EORDAEA                         N. Kozane province, Greece      
    LYNKESTIS                       Florina province, Greece        
    PELAGONIA                       Monastiri (Bitola), FYROM       
    

  • Lower Macedonia
  •          
    Ancient Name:                   Modern Location:        
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    AMPHAXITIS                      Kilkis province, Greece         
    ALMOPIA                         Pella province, Greece  
    PIERIA                          Pieria province, Greece 
    BOTTIAEA                        Emathia province, Greece        
    KRESTONIA                       N. Thessalonike province, Greece        
    MYGDONIA                        E. Thessalonike province, Greece        
    ANTHEMOUS                       S. Thessalonike province, Greece  
    Macedonians also used Greek terminology for their calander, that had many affinities with Aeolic and Doric calanders (various city states had different names for each months), which would be quite normal being that they are situated near Aeloian Thessaly and the Doric homeland of Epiros.
     
    The Ancient Macedonian calendar is the calendar that was in use in ancient Macedon in the 1st millennium BC. It consisted of 12 synodic Lunar months (i.e. 354 days per year), which needed intercalary months to stay in step with the seasons. By the time the calendar was being used across the Hellenistic world, 7 total embolimoi (intercalary months) were being added in each 19-year Metonic cycle.
    Δίος (Dios, moon of October)
    Απελλαίος (Apellaios, moon of November, also a Dorian month - Apellaiōn was a Tenian month)
    Αυδναίος or Αυδηναίος (Audnaios or Audēnaios, moon of December)
    Περίτιος (Peritios, moon of January)
    Δύστρος (Dystros, moon of February)
    Ξανδικός or Ξανθικός (Xandikos or Xanthikos, moon of March)
    Ξανδικός Εμβόλιμος (Xandikos Embolimos, intercalated 6 times over a 19-year cycle)
    Αρτεμίσιος or Αρταμίτιος (Artemisios or Artamitios, moon of April, also a Spartan, Rhodian and Epidaurian month - Artemisiōn was an Ionic month)
    Δαίσιος (Daisios, moon of May)
    Πάνημος or Πάναμος (Panēmos or Panamos, moon of June, also an Epidaurian, Miletian, Samian and Corinthian month)
    Λώιος (Lōios, moon of July - Ομολώιος, Homolōios, was an Aetolian, Boeotian and Thessalian month)
    Γορπιαίος (Gorpiaios, moon of August)
    Υπερβερεταίος (Hyperberetaios, moon of September - Hyperberetos was a Cretan month)
    Υπερβερεταίος Εμβόλιμος (Hyperberetaios Embolimos, intercalated once over a 19-year cycle)
    We know that the Attic (Athenian) dialect, an Ionic dialect which developed into the Koine, was the Greek dialect which was adopted by the Macedonians during the Hellenistic period. However, the Macedonian calendar bears no relation to the Attic (Athenian) calendar, and therefore cannot be said to have been adopted by the Macedonians in the same way as they adopted the Attic dialect.
     
     
     
     There are many theories about the origins of the Greek language. One theory suggests that it originated with a migration of proto-Greek speakers into Greece which is dated to any period between 3200 (a recent theory, I forget who) to a more commonly accepted 2200- 1900bc arrival date. The latest date brings Greek speakers into the Balkan/Aegean peninsula at 1600 bc. (Drews).
     
     
     
     
    Yet another theory maintains that Greek evolved in Greece itself out of an early Indo-European language. If this latter theory is to be accepted, than the original Indo-European homeland should be closer to the Balkans or in Asia Minor.....


    Edited by chicagogeorge - 08-Jun-2007 at 08:56
    Back to Top
    Guests View Drop Down
    Guest
    Guest
      Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 02:54
    Where-ever the ancient Greek system of writing came from - and whoever originally used it - and wherever its users originally came from is a mystery. One thing is certain, the system of writing/langauge ended up spreading throughout the aegean, but this was not its original homeland. Perhaps the people that brought it were settlers. Consider that the alphabet was devised by a small number of elites, and spread rapidly among the natives - who adopted it eventually. The observation that there existed an older non-Greek civilization all over the aegean - comes up now and again - but it is based on tidbits of acheology and anthropology.
    Back to Top
    Leonidas View Drop Down
    Tsar
    Tsar
    Avatar

    Joined: 01-Oct-2005
    Location: Australia
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 4613
      Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 08:58
    Originally posted by bylazora

    Where-ever the ancient Greek system of writing came from - and whoever originally used it - and wherever its users originally came from is a mystery. One thing is certain, the system of writing/langauge ended up spreading throughout the aegean, but this was not its original homeland. Perhaps the people that brought it were settlers. Consider that the alphabet was devised by a small number of elites, and spread rapidly among the natives - who adopted it eventually. The observation that there existed an older non-Greek civilization all over the aegean - comes up now and again - but it is based on tidbits of acheology and anthropology.
    nice theory but, ancient Greek alphabet comes from the Phoenicians. Two civilizations that trade and also have a habit to settle around the eastern Mediterranean will exchange ideas and such.



    edit: wording


    Edited by Leonidas - 08-Jun-2007 at 10:10
    Back to Top
    chicagogeorge View Drop Down
    Shogun
    Shogun


    Joined: 05-Feb-2007
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 207
      Quote chicagogeorge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 09:03

    ^^

     
    The system of writing originiated first with the Minoans as the Mycenaens adopted a linear system from them. By 900 bc, the Greeks adopted the Phoenician script, but altered it substantially to fit the Greek tongue.
     
    Back to their origins, Greek mythology has no memory of when the Greeks entered the Balkan/Aegean peninsula. Greek mythology does preserve myths/history that date back to before the Torjan War, and the tribal movements that followed it (Dorians and the  return of the Heracleidae. Using oral traditions as a way to determine where a people came from is not without merit. Imho, seeing that the ancient Greeks have no memory of their entry into Greece, but still knowing that their were people in Greece before them (Pelasgians?) must have taken place well before (probably by at least several centuries) the Mycenaean period (1600-1100 bc).


    Edited by chicagogeorge - 08-Jun-2007 at 09:07
    Back to Top
    Flipper View Drop Down
    Arch Duke
    Arch Duke
    Avatar

    Joined: 23-Apr-2006
    Location: Flipper HQ
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 1813
      Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 09:26
    Originally posted by chicagogeorge

    ^^

     
    The system of writing originiated first with the Minoans as the Mycenaens adopted a linear system from them. By 900 bc, the Greeks adopted the Phoenician script, but altered it substantially to fit the Greek tongue.
     


    Basically, the phoenician alphabet was probably adopted cause it was more friendly to the eye. It was not suitable for the language. For example:

    If you saw this word ΚΠΣ (Phoenician), you would be able to guess it is ΚΟΙΠΟΣ, ΚΑΠΟΣ, ΚΑΠΟΙΟΣ, ΚΑΠΟΙΑΣ, ΚΑΠΩΣ, ΚΟΠΟΣ etc. ΚΠΣ could be a whole bunch of words in Greek that could change the meaning of a sentence completely or even make a possesive form to a plain adjective.

    So, they had to alter it, or better said, to enrich it.


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
    Back to Top
    chicagogeorge View Drop Down
    Shogun
    Shogun


    Joined: 05-Feb-2007
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 207
      Quote chicagogeorge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 09:39
    Has anyone here read the book by Robert Drews, "The Coming of The Greeks"?
     
    His theory states that the Greek speakers arrived at around 1600 b.c via the Bosporus Staits, in relatively small bands. My disagreement with that theory is that again, there is no mythological (or oral) account of their arrival which would be only a couple hundred years or so before the pre Trojan era and myths relating to say the voyage of Jason, and the return of the Danaans, and more importantly, if Greek speakers came in small bands that took over a larger pre-Indo European population, than the Greek language would have more loan words from the native population. This isn't the case at all.


    Edited by chicagogeorge - 08-Jun-2007 at 09:48
    Back to Top
    Flipper View Drop Down
    Arch Duke
    Arch Duke
    Avatar

    Joined: 23-Apr-2006
    Location: Flipper HQ
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 1813
      Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 10:02
    Originally posted by chicagogeorge

    Has anyone here read the book by Robert Drews, "The Coming of The Greeks"?
     
    His theory states that the Greek speakers arrived at around 1600 b.c via the Bosporus Staits, in relatively small bands. My disagreement with that theory is that again, there is no mythological (or oral) account of their arrival which would be only a couple hundred years or so before the pre Trojan era and myths relating to say the voyage of Jason, and the return of the Danaans, and more importantly, if Greek speakers came in small bands that took over a larger pre-Indo European population, than the Greek language would have more loan words from the native population. This isn't the case at all.


    Well, some cities and kindoms were established before or right after 1600 b.c and we have records on that, so Drews never took into consideration some facts. I have some linguistic and archeological records at home (@ work now) which i will post later. Important factor of the latest theories are the agricultural findings in Epirus and the import of vegetation like Safran which can only have been brought from the anatolian side.


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
    Back to Top
    Leonidas View Drop Down
    Tsar
    Tsar
    Avatar

    Joined: 01-Oct-2005
    Location: Australia
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 4613
      Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 10:37
    Originally posted by Flipper



    Basically, the phoenician alphabet was probably adopted cause it was more friendly to the eye. It was not suitable for the language. For example:

    If you saw this word ΚΠΣ (Phoenician), you would be able to guess it is ΚΟΙΠΟΣ, ΚΑΠΟΣ, ΚΑΠΟΙΟΣ, ΚΑΠΟΙΑΣ, ΚΑΠΩΣ, ΚΟΠΟΣ etc. ΚΠΣ could be a whole bunch of words in Greek that could change the meaning of a sentence completely or even make a possesive form to a plain adjective.

    So, they had to alter it, or better said, to enrich it.
    minion script (linear A)  didn't fit well with the Greek language either. So the reasons may be, that Phoenician was easier to adapt and use.

    here are some links on Linear B Smile
    http://www.ancientscripts.com/linearb.html
    http://www.omniglot.com/writing/linearb.htm





     
    Back to Top
    chicagogeorge View Drop Down
    Shogun
    Shogun


    Joined: 05-Feb-2007
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 207
      Quote chicagogeorge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 11:02
    Originally posted by Flipper

    Originally posted by chicagogeorge

    Has anyone here read the book by Robert Drews, "The Coming of The Greeks"?
     
    His theory states that the Greek speakers arrived at around 1600 b.c via the Bosporus Staits, in relatively small bands. My disagreement with that theory is that again, there is no mythological (or oral) account of their arrival which would be only a couple hundred years or so before the pre Trojan era and myths relating to say the voyage of Jason, and the return of the Danaans, and more importantly, if Greek speakers came in small bands that took over a larger pre-Indo European population, than the Greek language would have more loan words from the native population. This isn't the case at all.


    Well, some cities and kindoms were established before or right after 1600 b.c and we have records on that, so Drews never took into consideration some facts. I have some linguistic and archeological records at home (@ work now) which i will post later. Important factor of the latest theories are the agricultural findings in Epirus and the import of vegetation like Safran which can only have been brought from the anatolian side.
     
    I believe the expansion of kingdoms at around 1600 b.c has to do in part with the developement and use of charriots in warfare in and around the Aegean.  Tribal chieftans were able to solidify their control over larger areas, with the use of more sophisticated weaponary. As for the latest theoris and the agricultural findings, do they point to an anatolian entrance for the Greek tribes? Or could spices such as safran have been traded or imported to the region?
    Back to Top
    Flipper View Drop Down
    Arch Duke
    Arch Duke
    Avatar

    Joined: 23-Apr-2006
    Location: Flipper HQ
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 1813
      Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 13:01
    Originally posted by Leonidas

    Originally posted by Flipper



    Basically, the phoenician alphabet was probably adopted cause it was more friendly to the eye. It was not suitable for the language. For example:

    If you saw this word ΚΠΣ (Phoenician), you would be able to guess it is ΚΟΙΠΟΣ, ΚΑΠΟΣ, ΚΑΠΟΙΟΣ, ΚΑΠΟΙΑΣ, ΚΑΠΩΣ, ΚΟΠΟΣ etc. ΚΠΣ could be a whole bunch of words in Greek that could change the meaning of a sentence completely or even make a possesive form to a plain adjective.

    So, they had to alter it, or better said, to enrich it.
    minion script (linear A)  didn't fit well with the Greek language either. So the reasons may be, that Phoenician was easier to adapt and use.

    here are some links on Linear B Smile
    http://www.ancientscripts.com/linearb.html
    http://www.omniglot.com/writing/linearb.htm

     


    Well, as you correctly said...Linear A seems to be a script language, so it definetely didn't fit them. Linear B was more clumsy and had too many letters. Moreover it had to be typed..That means they made a prototype and then they used mud to type it. The adoption was an easy task.

    What is interresting is that we have a huge pile of tablets that haven't been read yet. In Ithaka they found some stories about Odysseus written in Linear B from the 11th century. Wonder what other interresting things can be found?

    However, since the script exists in Crete from the 18th century BC, it is obvious they were already there and that the Dorians were not the first Greeks there. Also, that means that since Linear B is found in Greece at that time and no other place, puts the timeline back.


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
    Back to Top
    Flipper View Drop Down
    Arch Duke
    Arch Duke
    Avatar

    Joined: 23-Apr-2006
    Location: Flipper HQ
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 1813
      Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 13:05
    Originally posted by chicagogeorge

     
    I believe the expansion of kingdoms at around 1600 b.c has to do in part with the developement and use of charriots in warfare in and around the Aegean.  Tribal chieftans were able to solidify their control over larger areas, with the use of more sophisticated weaponary. As for the latest theoris and the agricultural findings, do they point to an anatolian entrance for the Greek tribes? Or could spices such as safran have been traded or imported to the region?


    I agree...

    As for the import, that is a damn good question. Greek safran is available in Macedonia (Veria, Kozani, Grevena) and some in the borders of Epirus. Next stop for safran nowadays, if i'm not wrong is Iran...So in any case the Safran story opens up a whole new world of theories like...Anatolian invasion of Greece and early contact of Greeks with Persians and Messopotamians. Big%20smile




    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
    Back to Top
    Flipper View Drop Down
    Arch Duke
    Arch Duke
    Avatar

    Joined: 23-Apr-2006
    Location: Flipper HQ
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 1813
      Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 15:50
    I've read the work of an excellent Dannish Lingust called George Hinge. From what I read his knowledge in ancient greek linguistics are remarkable.

    I got an extract from his work "Graesk sproghistorie" (Greek language history) for those who can read in Dannish: http://www.georgehinge.com/graesk_sproghistorie.pdf

    His introduction is interresting...Specifically:

    Inden for den indoeuropaeiske familie ligger graesk taettest p armensk og phrygisk og i anden raekke indo-iransk. Det er omstrid, hvornr det, der skulle udvikle sig till det graeske sprog. Hndbgerne naevner gerne dateringer omkring 2000 f.kr. En teori mener at graesk kom allered med landbruget ca. 6000 f.kr (Renfrew), mens der er andre, der haevder at de frst kom med stridvognen ca 1600 f.kr. (Drews). Sandheden ligger sandsynligvis midt imellen ekstremerne, muhligtvis 3200 f.kr.

    English translation:

    In the indoeuropean family of languages, greek is close to armenian and phrygian and even reaches indo-iranian. There's a debate about the dating of the Greek language invation. So far the handcoughs have been passed around 2000 BC. Another theory says that greeks came with their agriculture around 6000 BC (Renfrew), while another theory supports they came around 1600BC (Drews). The truth is in the middle of the two extremes, which is 3200BC.


    I guess this sounds pretty fair...1600BC is impossible if we think of the written history we've got nowadays. 6000BC could be based on the agricultural finding in Epirus and the Linear A tablet of Dispileon in Kastoria. So i guess 3200BC can be a good possition to start with...As for the relation to armenian and indoiranian it is hard for me to say but it seems that most linguists agree with that. As for Phrygian, many words are not hard to guess at all by a greek...

    Some exaples:

    Phrygian: Kakon (bad)
    Greek: Kako

    Phrygian: Brater (brother)
    Greek: Frater

    Phrygian: Mater (mother)
    Greek: Mater/Meter

    Phrygian: Velte (swamp)
    Greek: Valtos

    Phrygian: anar (man)
    Greek: aner

    Phrygian: Meka (big, great)
    Greek: Mega

    Phrygian: Zamelon (low)
    Greek: Chamelon

    and the list goes on...








    Edited by Flipper - 08-Jun-2007 at 16:03


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
    Back to Top
    chicagogeorge View Drop Down
    Shogun
    Shogun


    Joined: 05-Feb-2007
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 207
      Quote chicagogeorge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 16:35
    Back to Top
    chicagogeorge View Drop Down
    Shogun
    Shogun


    Joined: 05-Feb-2007
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 207
      Quote chicagogeorge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 16:38

    The above post is another theory that, Indo Europeans actually began in the Balkans.I.M. Diakonov's Theory of Indo-European Origins [(1985). On the Original Home of the Speakers of Indo-European. Journal of Indo-European Studies. Volume 13, p. 92] [Click on the Picture for a larger version.]

    Diakonov [The Paths of History, Cambridge University Press, 1999] explained that the Indo-Europeans managed to expand because of their comparative advantage over the more primitive societies that surrounded them:

    However, I would like to note at once -against the opinions of Maria Gimbutas and other authorities of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but in accordance with the later findings of C. Renfrew and J.P. Mallory- that the most ancient Indo-Europeans living in the fifth to third millennia BC, i.e. long before the Iron Age, although already acquainted with horse-drawn chariots, never were nomads. Their movement across Eurasia (presumably via the Balkans) was not a miltary invasion, but a slow spread, caused by a fall in the child mortality rate and, consequently, by an increase in population growth. The reason was that the population speaking the Indo-European proto-language changed to a diet of milk and meat, and had a sufficiently developed agriculture (growing barley, wheat, grapes and vegetables). The surrounding population which lived in the Early Primitive Phase, and thus was by far not so numerous (the population numbers after the change from Primitive to Primitive Communal Phase tend to multiply by two orders of magnitude), adopted the agricultural achievements of the Indo-Europeans, and at the same time also adopted their language; thus the further movements involved not only the original Indo-Europeans but also tribes who had adopted the language and the mores, the latter including the Primitive Communal stage customs which the Indo-Europeans had evolved.

    One of the most respected archaeologists of our time, Colin Renfrew [Archaeology and Language : The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. ISBN: 0521386756] has argued convincingly that Indo-European languages were spread by farmers who, in search of new land gradually expanded outwards from the Fertile Crescent. He arrived at this conclusion by noting that almost all major language families were spread with farmers: didn't the farmers who colonized Europe also bring their language with them? Farmers, gradually expanding in small groups from the Fertile Crescent, and in the case of Indo-European languages from Anatolia, would profoundly alter the linguistic landscape of the lands they settled and cultivated. Renfrew's closely argued case is valuable both for providing a reasonable mechanism for the spread of Indo-European origins, and also for his thorough analysis of why other theories are wrong, or at least are supported by far flimsier evidence than they suppose.

    Lord Renfrew has recently slightly modified his previous scheme. Now, he thinks that Proto-Indo-European unity is to be found in the Balkans, in agreement with the opinon of Diakonov. Proto-Indo-European was however an offshoot of Pre-Proto-Indo-European which was the language of the early farmers who crossed the Aegean from Anatolia to settle in Thessaly. There, and in their subsequent northern expansion was formed the Proto-Indo-European community which subsequently gave birth to all the historical Indo-European languages, while those of Anatolia (Hittite, Luwian and Palaic) are actually an off-shoot of the Pre-Proto-Indo-European group that stayed behind.

    According to Renfrew [The Tarim basin, Tocharian, and Indo-European origins: a view from the west, in V.Mair (ed.), The Bronze Age & Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph #26, vol.1)]:

    In harmony with the view of Dolgopolsky, and of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, and following Sturtevant (1962), I suggest that the basic division in the early Indo-European languages is between the Anatolian languages on one hand and all the other members of the Indo-European family in the other. Such a view arises directly from the farming dispersal hypothesis, since farming came to Europe from Anatolia. It is suggested that all the other branches of the Indo-European languages (except possibly Armenian) were derived from the western branch of the divide (ancestral to the Indo-European languages of Europe, including those of the steppes, and thus also of the Iranian plateau, central Asia, and south Asia) [...] The secondary center, as Diakonoff realized, is the Balkans (around 5000 BCE), and from there one must envisage a division with the bulk of the early Proto-Indo-European languages of central and Western Europe (the languages of Old Europe in some terminologies, although emphatically not that of Gimbutas) on the one hand, and those of the steppe lands to the north of the Black Sea on the other (4th millennium BCE).

    To illustrate the scheme of Colin Renfrew, I reproduce his tree of relationships of Indo-European languages:



    Edited by chicagogeorge - 08-Jun-2007 at 16:39
    Back to Top
     Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>

    Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

    Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
    Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

    This page was generated in 0.111 seconds.