QuoteReplyTopic: Were the Greeks indigenous? Posted: 23-Aug-2012 at 17:39
Originally posted by Don Quixote
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.
Don Quixote,
I don't take for granted any Celtic migration at that period. I am just giving some conjectures based on the combination of some factors. Celtic were identified as an ethnos at a period which roughly coincides with the Halshtat culture. Yet the boundary with the Illyrian world remains very thin. Archeologists asserts that "Urnfield Culture" at its nadir was expanded in south. A powerful stream might have tarnished even the Greece as the below map suggest.
The carriers of 'Urnfield culture' were Proto-Illyrians, who crept even in Greece. It seem logical to assume that Dorians were a confederation of proto-Illyrian tribes. To sum it up, Celts are derived from the same ethnic pool of Illyrians. One is tempted to say that Roman writers ascribed a 'Celtic' origin to the Greeks because of their incapability to grasp the very fact that only Illyrians were existent at the period when Danubian peoples moved in south.
Originally posted by Don Quixote
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.
This similarity was pointed out by Ephorus. He did not specify what customs were.
Ephorus,
about 350 B.C., has three lines of verse about the Celts in which they are
described as using" the same customs as the Greeks " - whatever that
may mean - and being on the friendliest terms with that people, who
established guest friend-ships among them.
Celts are not Illyrians, the developed in Central Europe, way away from Illyria; and Urnfield are not Celts either, those are pre-Celtiic, in this time there were nor Greeks nor Celts per se. Now, if Urnfield brushed with Greece, we can talk about possible pre-historial mixing, not a historical one, as with Celts. Celts are derived probably from Halshtatt, but this happened in what is now Germany, not in Illyria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts Here, the yellow is Halstatt, the light green is Celtic expansion by 275 BC, nowhere close to Greece, nor Illyria.
Besides, only one unspecified line by someone doesn't mean much to me. Such things are supposed to be proven by archeological material, not by opinions that may for all we know be wrong. The ancient writers weren't right in all things by any means, so such a reference is not of much worth. Was Ephorus a historian?
Technically speaking, with the exception of the original hominids in the Rift Valley, there is no such thing as an "indigenous" people. Everyone migrated from somewhere. The Amerinds, for example, are now known to have most likely migrated to America from Asia, either across the Land Bridge or by following the shoreline and edges of the glaciers, and although they may well have been the "first" humans in America, they were not "native" to the area, are equally have driven out earlier groups. The Ansazi, for example, are referred to as "ancients" by other Amerinds, and have a great deal in common with the Maya in terms of construction, agriculture, road building and astronomy.
Celts are not Illyrians, the developed in Central Europe, way away from Illyria; and Urnfield are not Celts either, those are pre-Celtiic, in this time there were nor Greeks nor Celts per se. Now, if Urnfield brushed with Greece, we can talk about possible pre-historial mixing, not a historical one, as with Celts. Celts are derived probably from Halshtatt, but this happened in what is now Germany, not in Illyria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts Here, the yellow is Halstatt, the light green is Celtic expansion by 275 BC, nowhere close to Greece, nor Illyria.
Besides, only one unspecified line by someone doesn't mean much to me. Such things are supposed to be proven by archeological material, not by opinions that may for all we know be wrong. The ancient writers weren't right in all things by any means, so such a reference is not of much worth. Was Ephorus a historian?
And yet the Celts seem to have come after the Picts, the Picts having become somewhat legendary by the time the Celts were being mentioned cicrca 400 Ad or so.
The Irish, currently considered by many to be the
descendants of the Celts, are more likely to be descendants of the
Hyberni, one of the two groups who made up the original Picts, although it
appears uncertain just exactly where the Picts themselves came from.
Technically speaking, with the exception of the original hominids in the Rift Valley, there is no such thing as an "indigenous" people. Everyone migrated from somewhere. The Amerinds, for example, are now known to have most likely migrated to America from Asia, either across the Land Bridge or by following the shoreline and edges of the glaciers, and although they may well have been the "first" humans in America, they were not "native" to the area, are equally have driven out earlier groups. The Ansazi, for example, are referred to as "ancients" by other Amerinds, and have a great deal in common with the Maya in terms of construction, agriculture, road building and astronomy.
Sorry about that, CV.
A very good argument against the use of the term race when describing people from different regions.
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.
And yet the Celts seem to have come after the Picts, the Picts having become somewhat legendary by the time the Celts were being mentioned cicrca 400 Ad or so.
The Irish, currently considered by many to be the
descendants of the Celts, are more likely to be descendants of the
Hyberni, one of the two groups who made up the original Picts, although it
appears uncertain just exactly where the Picts themselves came from.
Sorry, I didn't get here the connection with the Greeks. Of course people are moving and mixing everywhere, any indigeunouslity is very relevant; when it's said that the Greeks are is "indigenous"what is meant is that the Dorian hypothesis that states that the Dorian Greeks came from the North and assimilated/dsiplaced whoever was there may not be happened so. At least this is my take on it.
DNA tests show that the harlogroup of the ancient Greeks is not related to Northern Europe but to Southern & Eastern only. Myths and fantasies are no proof of anything. The so-called "North" that the Dorians (hypothetically) came from, was the North of Greece (Balkan peninsula) not.... Scandinavia!
That's right, from the Balkans. Which means from places like Macedon, Epirus etc; talking about this I never got that - if, hypothetically, there was a Dorian invasio, then the said places would be populated by the first Dorian/Greeks - how come its said that they weren't such, if those were the first places where the Dorians came to iin Greece?
Celts are not Illyrians, the developed in Central Europe, way away from Illyria; and Urnfield are not Celts either, those are pre-Celtiic, in this time there were nor Greeks nor Celts per se. Now, if Urnfield brushed with Greece, we can talk about possible pre-historial mixing, not a historical one, as with Celts. Celts are derived probably from Halshtatt, but this happened in what is now Germany, not in Illyria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts Here, the yellow is Halstatt, the light green is Celtic expansion by 275 BC, nowhere close to Greece, nor Illyria.
Besides, only one unspecified line by someone doesn't mean much to me. Such things are supposed to be proven by archeological material, not by opinions that may for all we know be wrong. The ancient writers weren't right in all things by any means, so such a reference is not of much worth. Was Ephorus a historian?
And yet the Celts seem to have come after the Picts, the Picts having become somewhat legendary by the time the Celts were being mentioned cicrca 400 Ad or so.
The Irish, currently considered by many to be the
descendants of the Celts, are more likely to be descendants of the
Hyberni, one of the two groups who made up the original Picts, although it
appears uncertain just exactly where the Picts themselves came from.
This map is completely outdated. Extensive studies from the last 15 years have shown that the "Halstatt - La Tene" model is not the right one. (It's not the right thread to discuss it however.)
Celts are not Illyrians, the developed in Central Europe, way away from Illyria; and Urnfield are not Celts either, those are pre-Celtiic, in this time there were nor Greeks nor Celts per se. Now, if Urnfield brushed with Greece, we can talk about possible pre-historial mixing, not a historical one, as with Celts. Celts are derived probably from Halshtatt, but this happened in what is now Germany, not in Illyria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts Here, the yellow is Halstatt, the light green is Celtic expansion by 275 BC, nowhere close to Greece, nor Illyria.
Besides, only one unspecified line by someone doesn't mean much to me. Such things are supposed to be proven by archeological material, not by opinions that may for all we know be wrong. The ancient writers weren't right in all things by any means, so such a reference is not of much worth. Was Ephorus a historian?
And yet the Celts seem to have come after the Picts, the Picts having become somewhat legendary by the time the Celts were being mentioned cicrca 400 Ad or so.
The Irish, currently considered by many to be the
descendants of the Celts, are more likely to be descendants of the
Hyberni, one of the two groups who made up the original Picts, although it
appears uncertain just exactly where the Picts themselves came from.
This map is completely outdated. Extensive studies from the last 15 years have shown that the "Halstatt - La Tene" model is not the right one. (It's not the right thread to discuss it however.)
I don't want to "spoil" this thread. Heareafter the begining of a thread I opened on another forum :
The Hallstatt – La Tène model is definitely out!
1- The Hallstatt - La Tène model
In the early 19th century, historians believed that
the Celts had been present in Western Europe
since the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE.
The discovery of the sites of Hallstatt (1846) and La
Tène (1857) allowed historians to recognize the presence of Celts, where
Herodotus located them in the fifth century BCE, near the mouth of the Danube.
In 1870, the French Gabriel de Mortillet and the Swiss
Emile Desor recognized, among the materials discovered in tombs located near
the Etruscan town of Marzabotto, fibulae and swords similar to those they had
found in the Champagne tombs, and on the Swiss site of La Tène.
The historical migrations of the Celts to the North of
Italy in the 5th - 4th centuries described by Livy were therefore certified by
these discoveries.
Historians of the beginning of the 20th century,
including the French J. Déchelette, imagined then that the Celtic world
expanded from the fifth century, due to migrations of populations of Latenian
culture.
Thus the hypothesis of the origin and expansion of the
Celts from a central European core was born.
A little later, the Iron Age was divided in two periods,
Hallstatt (-850 to -450) and La Tène (-450 to 0), the second culture obviously
deriving from the first one.
The hypothesis that the cultures expand with peoples migrations
was then applied to the previous period, and it resulted with the following
chronological sequence:
The Tumulus culture ®The Urnfield culture ®The Hallstatt
culture ®The La Tène culture.
This model was « The model » throughout the 20th
century, with some very unfortunate developments (G.Kossinna).
It is yet very common, especially on Internet, to
explain the origin and expansion of the Celts, as it is clear and simple.
To sum up this model:
- The Celts appear at the beginning of the 1st
millennium with the Hallstatt culture,
- The expansion of the Celts is due to migrations from
this Central European core.
A map example:
(the same as shown before)
This model
is simple but it is wrong.
At least that’s
what all the scholars have been writing for the last ten years.
2- Why has the Hallstatt – La Tène model been
abandoned?
Here is a list of some of the present scholars that
have clearly abandoned the Hallstatt – La Tène (HLT) model:
Miklos SZABO (2009)
Sabine RIECKHOFF (2006):
It is astounding to see that the J.Dechelette
hypothesis remains to the present day the main base of all maps, on which the
Celts expand in all the directions from a so-called original land.
Stephen OPPENHEIMER (2010):
The current orthodox view of the origin of the Celts
is one of the remaining myths left over from the 19th century.
Ludwig PAULI
Daniele
VITALI (2006):
The migrationist models that have been in use to solve
the Celts presence in Iberia
have been abandoned.
John KOCH
(2009)
John COLIS (2003):
So why did the Celts have to arrive sometime in the
Iron Age? Part of this was due to the concept of the so-called Hallstatt and La
Tène cultures, and in 1986 I brought together examples in my paper “Adieu La
Tene” and “Adieu Hallstatt” showing how at various times and places the
archaeological record had been grossly misinterpreted to fit the preconceived
interpretation.
Brian RAFTERY
Barry CUNLIFFE (2010):
A traditional belief, still widely held, is that the
Celts originated somewhere in western central Europe, to the north of the Alps,
and from there, in a succession of movements over many centuries, spread
westwards into Iberia, Britain, ….The time is now right for a new model of
“Celtic origins” to be offered.
Patrice BRUN (2005)
Pierre
Yves MILCENT (2006):
The latenian core and the hypothesis of a cultural or
ethnic centrifuge model have never existed, if not in the mind of many
searchers since the 19th century.
Venceslas KRUTA (2006):
The initial core of the Celts was up to the present
day identified as the Hallstatt culture. We must fundamentally change our ideas
on the origin and expansion of the Celts.
Thanks for the info. However, I didn't see where in your post is said that the Celts went all the way to Greece - all I see iis North Italy. Can you post a map here, which illustrate your info? If the thread is spoilt by such an action, I will willingly take a responsibility for it.
I actually didn't say that the Celts went all the way to Greece (in remote times), because they didn't .
My point is not relating to possible movements of Celts into Greece, it's relating to the ancient model described in some previous posts, assuming that:
1- the Celts "came" from the Urnfield Culture to the Hallstatt core,
2- the Hallsttat culture evolved into the Latenian culture,
3- then the Celts moved from this latenian core to the West, to the South and to the East.
Today, the status of the knowledge is that :
- The point 1- is wrong
- The point 2- is true
- The point 3- is partly true / wrong. What is wrong are the expansions to the west and to the south. What is true is the expansion to the East, from the 3rd century BC. So I agree with you that the Celts cannot be considered as part of the origin of the Greeks. They went all the way to Greece only in the 3rd century.
Recent work suggest that Indo-European languages originated in Anatolia and not further north in Eurasian Steppes as suggested by Gimbutas.
Family Tree of Languages Has Roots in Anatolia, Biologists Say
The computer was also given geographical information about the present
range of each language and told to work out the likeliest pathways of
distribution from an origin, given the probable family tree of descent.
The calculation pointed to Anatolia, particularly a lozenge-shaped area
in what is now southern Turkey, as the most plausible origin — a region
that had also been proposed as the origin of Indo-European by the
archaeologist Colin Renfrew, in 1987, because it was the source from
which agriculture spread to Europe.
Renfrew had already hypothesized this idea 25 years ago, when he suggested that the Greek language developed in the Aegean region over a long period of time beginning during the late neolithic era
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