QuoteReplyTopic: Were the Greeks indigenous? Posted: 10-Oct-2005 at 21:40
In short, the legends portray Heracles as of the Mycenaean royal family having been born to Alcmene, the wife of Amphitryon, son of Alcaeus, grandson of Perseus, king of Mycenae, although Zeus was his actual father. The story goes that Heracles may have been the rightful heir to the Mycenaean throne if only he was born before Eurystheus, son of Sthenelus, grandson of Perseus, but Hera delayed the birth of Heracles and Eurytheus was born first. As an adult, Heracles, in order to atone for the murder of his own family from a fit of insanity caused by Hera was told by the Delphian Oracle to submit to Eurystheus, now king of Mycenae. The twelve labors the Mycenaean king imposed on him are seen by some as a series of campaigns (Heracles as a general) which first took place about the Argolis, later, throughout the Peloponnese, and the last ones, overseas, in effect to create an empire for the king of Mycenae.
Afterwards, as a freeman, Hera continued to cause Heracles greater misfortune which caused him to become a slave to the queen of Lydia. Some view this as Heracles becoming some mercenary general, because of his adventures in western Anatolia. Eventually he was freed and became a warlord, engaging in piracy and brigandage. Establishing a base in Arcadia he reaked havoc on the Peloponnese. Following this, he left the Peloponnese for central Greece for adventures there where he married his final wife, Deianira. Among his adventures was his aid to the Dorians against the Dryopes.
With the death of Heracles, Eurysthenes the king of Mycenae began the persecution of his children. The Heraclidae found refuge with the Athenians. Eurysthenes attacked the Athenians but was defeated, captured and executed. The Mycenaeans through an oracle chose the Atreidae to rule them. Having again been denied the rule of Mycenae, the Heraclidae ravaged the Peloponnese but were defeated by Atreus and their leader Hyllus was killed. They withdrew from the Peloponnese to Dryopis (the later Doris) where the Dorians excepted them as equals. For the next two generations the Heraclidae led the Dorians into the Peloponese but were defeated each time. It was in the third generation of Heraclids that they were successful in leading the Dorians into permanent domination of the Peloponnese.
The ancient myths do in fact speak of wars between Greek kingdoms. Thebes, itself was destroyed because of a generation-long war with Argos (The Seven Against Thebes, The Epigoni). It would therefore not be inappropriate to consider the Return of the Heraclidae as an invasion in the truest sense of the word. The very regions which they came to dominate are in fact the regions which archaeology has shown to have been depopulated. The Dorians would have pushed populations into the periphery of their power, and the archaeology does in fact show that regions not touched by the Dorian invasion did gain an increase in population, such as Attica and Euboia. According to the legends, the Achaeans pushed out the Ionians out of the northern Peloponnese and forced them eastwards into Attica. Since the Dorians supposedly originated from a region in central Greece within the boundaries of Mycenaean culture, it then stands within reason that their culture would not be particularly different from other parts of Greece. Their passage into the Peloponnese would be relatively undetectable.
An interesting Discussion. I don't share the knowledge that some of you
have of this topic, but it seems like Maju makes the more
coherent/cohesive point.
I have read that;
-The dorians were a branch of the Indo-Europeans from the Danube area,
who began invading Greece around 1200-1100 BC, and who sparked a
massive migration of the people arleady occuping Greece into the
Islands of the Aegean Sea and parts of Asia Minor.
-(according to Pamela Bradley (University of cambridge))
I think that;
-Perhaps the legend of the Dorians Being descendants or
companions/brothers of the Hereklids is somewhat akin to all other
legends; used to make the main benefactors of the legend look great and
noble. The later Greeks (5th century) all used to claim they were
descendants of Achillies, yet even if the Myceneans did attack Troy,
Mycenae was only one Polis out of many, and there is no proof she had a
direct control over any others.
-The fact that the Dorian 'invasion' coincdies very nicely with the
migration of the Ionians to Asia minor, seem to show that it indeed was
just that; an invasion. It is not very plausible that they just
attacked Mycenae to restore the Hereklids, as this would not have
prompted the migration of many different Polis' all at one time.
-The dorians were a branch of the Indo-Europeans from the Danube area,
who began invading Greece around 1200-1100 BC, and who sparked a
massive migration of the people arleady occuping Greece into the
Islands of the Aegean Sea and parts of Asia Minor.
-(according to Pamela Bradley (University of cambridge))
Can you give more evidence for that (apparently outdated) theory. I
used to think that (connecting Dorians to Urnfields) but it seems that
there's no evidence for it. All we know is that Dorians were living in
northern Greece and that they spoke a Greek dialect. Of course they
could have been an assimilated population but how can you prove that?
Like i said i only read it, and have no further evidence
Just thought it might be something useful to bring up.
May it be that the Dorians living in Northern Greece originally came
from The Danube region, and merely progressed through Greece in stages?
are there actually any precise dates for the movement of the Dorians?
Because if were talking over a couple of hundred years, assimilation is
plausible.
I don't mean to sound demeaning but how do you know that the Dorians
were from central greece apart from what the legends say about them?
- in other words.. i don't know enough about this, perhaps you could enlighten me on some of your sources?
Well while I have heard of this Danube origin theory before, it is
obviously an outdated and non-acceptable theory simply because. If this
'group', the Dorians, were originally from that area we'd find some
similarities in customs, traditions....etc. something we clearly do
not.
While there have been some finds of pottery, who's 'style' can be
connected to the area in question, the quantity is too small to support
any kind of such a wide scaled invasion..So the pottery may be nothing
more that simple imports or immitations..
On the other hand, there are finds of pottery, Doric columns, iron
weapons...etc. allegedly brought by these 'invaders' but unfortunately
(for the supporters of the theory) all the above mentioned finds,
predate the dates suggested for their arrival.. which proves the prior
to the suggested date connections and the Dorian presence in the lands
of Hellas...
Another interesting problem with this theory is that, if the Dorians
were IE, they must be the ones that 'introduced' to the already
existing population the IE language.. but this notion again is not
acceptable, simply because of our knowledge of Linear B' that predates
the 'migration/invasion' by a couple of hundred years.. Not to mention
the fact that the Dorians spoke the language of the land in question,
so their origin being anything but Hellinic must be rejected..
If we were to take this further, anthropologically speaking.
J. Lawrence Angel studied skeletal material from the Paleolithic to
modern times, and participated in examinations of skeletal material
throughout the East Mediterranean. With respect to Hellas, he found that the morphological types already established in the third millennium BC, if not before that, persisted in all subsequent ages. He emphasized the racial continuity of the Hellines, stating epigrammatically :
“Racial continuity in Greece is striking.”
see:
Angel, J. Lawrence, 1944, A racial analysis of the ancient Greeks: An
essay on the use of morphological types, American Journal of Physical
Anthropology
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
The evidence does seem to be overwhelmingly in favour of them
originating from mainland Greece, but it still seems (to me) as if
invasion is the proper term as;
-Even though we see them all one general 'culture', the concepts of nationality we have today
were not the same back then. For example the Dorian
Spartans in the Peloponnese obviously saw themselves as superior. For example; you would
not see the Peloponnesian war of 431BC as Civil war, but rather
as a war between different bodies, i.e Sparta was seen as 'invading'
Attica, even by historians of the time (e.g Thucydides), or even though
Macedon was basically Helenistic they still 'invaded' about 50 years
later. Thus the unity of the Hellas over 500 years before this would be
even more loose.
-They also brought about changes in this 'culture' (i.e geometric potery, and iron), so
therefore they can't have been completely similar to those who had been
dominant before.
-Their 'invasion' and exapnsion (e.g to Rhodes, Cyprus, etc.)
conincides with the migration of existing polis' as well, thus it is
plausible that the agression of percieved invaders was one of the
reasons behind this expansion.
-The notion that they were simply 'returning' to the Peloponese seems
more like a pretext or a later addition, as if they were there
originally from this region, how and why did they migrate to northern
Greece in the first place, why weren't the effects on culture observed
at earlier times? In truth i do not really understand what you mean by
this 'returning' (as discussed in other threads).
It is a scientific society founded by Aris Poulianos, an anthropologist with researches claiming that Greeks are indigeous and the theories of the West about Greeks being an Indo-European race are not correct. The beliefs of this society are not recognised by the Greek state.
The English version of the page is not so rich, but it has many info.
It is a scientific society founded by Aris Poulianos, an
anthropologist with researches claiming that Greeks are indigeous and
the theories of the West about Greeks being an Indo-European race are
not correct. The beliefs of this society are not recognised by the
Greek state.
The English version of the page is not so rich, but it has many info.
There's no IE "race". When we talk of IEs, we talk of language, maybe
culture and ethicity but not biology. This is because it seems obvious
that like Arabs or Turks after them, IEs mixed with locals up to the
point of near disapearence in the genetic pool. This was helped by the
fact that they migrated in diferent stages, diluting their blood as
they advanced and also because most of those invaded regions, such as
Greece, were densely populated.
But there are no IE "races", just IE-speaking peoples of any "races",
including non-Caucasoids, like Jamaicans, Haitians or Filipinos.
In fact the very concept of "race" is so ridiculous and outdated that
there should not be any half-serious paper using that term. Race is
something that applies to dogs and other domestic animals, it doesn't
work with humans and other wild species. The concept of race implies
artificial selection favoring "purity", often through controled incest
and eugenesia, but neither our species nor wild animals are selected
that way.
I was wondering how Romans viewed the case of Greek "autochthony" in Balkans. Even though its authenticity remains questionable as I am not able to verify the sources, Tiberius Claudius deemed Upper Pannonia as the cradle of the first Greeks:
“Among these Celts, if the word is to have any significance, (are included) even the Achaen Greeks, who had established themselves for some time in the Upper Danube Valley before pushing southward into Greece. Yes, the Greeks are comparative newcomers to Greece. They displaced the native Pelasgians ... This happened not long before the Trojan War; the Dorian Greeks came still later -eighty years after the Trojan War. Other Celts of the same race invaded France and Italy at about the same time.
Consequently some Romans recognized some northern components on the Greeks. Yet it remains doubtful what inspired them to ascribe a Celtic origin. The proponents of IE theory asserts that both Illyrians, Thracians and Proto-Greeks cohabited for some time in Upper Danube valley before they swamped into Balkans. But the Greeks of Classical age did not feel any affinity with the Celts. They were ascribed as barbarians. Other scholars argued that Greek mythology was full of Celtic deities. The fact that Greeks adored the deities with white hair from Hyperborea (even though its location is never defined) suggest that Greeks retained some memories of their northern origin. What are your thoughts?
I was wondering how Romans viewed the case of Greek "autochthony" in Balkans. Even though its authenticity remains questionable as I am not able to verify the sources, Tiberius Claudius deemed Upper Pannonia as the cradle of the first Greeks:
“Among these Celts, if the word is to have any significance, (are included) even the Achaen Greeks, who had established themselves for some time in the Upper Danube Valley before pushing southward into Greece. Yes, the Greeks are comparative newcomers to Greece. They displaced the native Pelasgians ... This happened not long before the Trojan War; the Dorian Greeks came still later -eighty years after the Trojan War. Other Celts of the same race invaded France and Italy at about the same time.
Consequently some Romans recognized some northern components on the Greeks. Yet it remains doubtful what inspired them to ascribe a Celtic origin. The proponents of IE theory asserts that both Illyrians, Thracians and Proto-Greeks cohabited for some time in Upper Danube valley before they swamped into Balkans. But the Greeks of Classical age did not feel any affinity with the Celts. They were ascribed as barbarians. Other scholars argued that Greek mythology was full of Celtic deities. The fact that Greeks adored the deities with white hair from Hyperborea (even though its location is never defined) suggest that Greeks retained some memories of their northern origin. What are your thoughts?
Bear in mind that Tiberius Claudius' sources were earlier Roman and Greek historians. The theory that the Greeks came from the North is dubious. According to DNA research, the ancient Greeks, just like the modern Greeks, were a mixture of indigenous and other Anatolian and Balkan tribes.
Nordic presence in ancient Greece was close to zero, before 279 BC (Celtic invasion of Brennus).
Between 279 and 235 BC, there were massive Celtic migrations to Greece and Anatolia (modern Turkey). However, most of them were expelled from Greece, afterwards. The Celts settled in Anatolia and those tribes were known as Galatians.
The Greeks did not adore Northern deities. It's the other way around..... The Greek/Roman gods became known to the Northern tribes, gradually.
The theory about the Pelasgians seems kinda dubious to me - first, it has to go with teh so called "Dorian invasion"that is and old and t some perconet artifiial theory; second, I cannt really find modern academic works that talk about the Pelasgians and prove their existence in an archeological way. It seems to me that the Greeks developed form the whoever lived in Greece/Balkans since the Neolithic times. This is my favorite archeological work on the Aegean area from the Darthmouth College site http://www.dartmouth.edu/~prehistory/aegean/?page_id=104 - it follows the archeological string of evidence from the Paleolithic forward, and to my eyes more or less proves that the Greeks are indeed indigenous to the area.
"
Greek sources of the Classical period acknowledge the prior existence of indigenous people(s), whom they referred to as "Pelasgians". These peoples inhabited lands surrounding the Aegean Sea before the subsequent migrations of the Hellenic ancestors claimed by these authors. The disposition and precise identity of this former group is elusive, and sources such as Homer, Hesiod and Herodotus give varying, partially mythological accounts. However, it is clear that cultures existed whose indigenous characteristics were distinguished by the subsequent Hellenic cultures (and distinct from non-Greek speaking "foreigners", termed "barbarians" by the historical Greeks)......". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples#Classical_antiquity
"The Proto-Greeks probably arrived at the area now called Greece, in the southern tip of theBalkan peninsula, at the end of the3rd millennium BC,[49][50][a], though a later migration by sea from eastern Anatolia, modern Armenia, has also been suggested.[51]The sequence of migrations into the Greek mainland during the2nd millennium BChas to be reconstructed on the basis of theancient Greek dialects, as they presented themselves centuries later and is subject to some uncertainties. There were at least two migrations, the first of theIoniansandAeolianswhich resulted inMycenaean Greeceby the 16th century BC,[39][52]and the second, theDorian invasion, around the 11th century BC, displacing theArcadocypriot dialectswhich descended from the Mycenaean period. Both migrations occur at incisive periods, the Mycenaean at the transition to theLate Bronze Ageand the Doric at theBronze Age collapse.
There were some suggestions of three waves of migration indicating a Proto-Ionian one, either contemporary or even earlier than the Mycenaean. This possibility appears to have been first suggested by Ernst Curtius in the 1880s. In current scholarship, the standard assumption is to group the Ionictogether with the Arcadocypriot group as the successors of a single Middle Bronze Age migration in dual opposition to the "western" group of Doric......" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks#Origins
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
Wiki is not a match to an academic research book or a certified textbook. I reccomend to everyone who is really interested in the subject to read the archeologically supported story of the people of the Balkans, not to fill holes with easy accessible and very suspiscious as content wiki pages. In any case I don't buy the last.
In any case I would like someone who subscribe for the existence of the Pelasgians to read the posted textbook and to tell me with which one of the about at least 20 archeologcal culture the said "Pelasgians" can be identified. Otherwise I'm not interested in un-connected to hard proof general talk.
The archeological history of the region is a very complicated one, and cannot be simplified to one indigenous people and some migrants from the North.
Otherwise there was movement of poeple then as now, there is nothing new about that, but this movement was mostly through Anatolia, not from the North - cultural connection with Anatolia are archeologically proven. However, the number of the locals is always more than the one of the migrants - and the DNA shows that the Greeks are so called Mediterranean people, with markers typicals for the said area; not Nordic ones, to my best knowledge. The Dorian Hypothesis is not proved, and in fact got even more wobbly with the current DNA data.
The Greeks did not adore Northern deities. It's the other way around..... The Greek/Roman gods became known to the Northern tribes, gradually.
You did not get my point at all. I was saying that Classical Greeks were apparently addicted to the 'northern' background of many deities. Mythological stories do mention that Zeus, Apollo, etc journeyed as far as the land of Hyperboreans. This might have been an indication of several migrations which occurred in early times from North to south and vice versa too. A Greek writer stated in one occasion that Celts have same customs as Greeks.
The gReeks always conneced isdon and special knowledge with North, the land of the Hyperboreans; bt I don't see how that can be any indication to migrations from North; mby be for some real Greeks journeying to there, if the myths are to be taken at face value, but not migrations from there. I don't remember mythological migrations that state that so and so Greek guy came from Hyperborea per se.
Which writer mentioned the last detail and where? Which Greek customs are the same as those of the Celts? Every such custom has to be followed by itself, so the time of possible cultural borrowing to be stipulated; sometimes there are just coincidences too, not every similaity shows borrowing.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum