Borza Claims for the Dorian Invasion

Edited by akritas - 07-Sep-2007 at 14:19

When you write history or sciences in general you express you opinion and elaborate it with evidence. Borza is very good in some points but he has some major flaws.

He tends to state somethings and never express why or how? A perfect a example in the shadows of Olympus is the "Hellenization" idea. He states it and what next? Until that point he is very detailed, but on that view he never explains why they were Hellenized. He doesn't provide data at all. No evidence, no timeframes, nothing. He is just absurd on some points when making statements.

As for the Dorians, is it riddiculus to claim it never happened. There are sources, there is archeological data and there is language!!! What else is needed in history really? Do we need video documents from the invation or what? How would otherwise a dialect spoken for example in Molossia, appear in an island like Karpathos which is exactly on the other endpoint of Greece?




Edited by Flipper - 08-Sep-2007 at 04:22

Borza is not "anti-Greek", let's avoid making such absurd statements. There are no political nor patriotic motives in his work. He states what he believes and he admits that his views aren't mainstream. The vast majority of scholars does accept the theory of the Dorian invasion. Not because of Herodotus, not because of the archaeology but because of linguistics. The Doric dialect and its influences do support the appearance of a new Greek-speaking people in the heartland of Greece. For example Doric preserves the Indo-european long 'a'
where most other dialects have converted it to a long 'e' (Sparta -> Sparte, damos -> demos, etc).

As for Macedon, the majority of scholars and linguist accept that it was a suburb of the Greek world, as were Epirus and Cyprus at the time. The Macedonians can be viewed as a Hellenic people who spoke a dubious Hellenic idiom, but they cannot be considered the same "type" of Greeks as the Athenians the Spartans or the Ionians (at least not prior to Alexander's conquests). They didn't have a polis and they weren't viewed as equals by the other Greeks. Their kingdom contained unarguably pockets of non-Greek-speakers speakers, nobably Thraco-Illyrians. The "hellenization" of Macedon refers to Philip's adaption of the Attic dialect as the official language of the state. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Macedonians were barbarians who chose to become Greek. The view I support is that Macedonians were largely backwater Greeks who had missed the development of the Greek mainstream and had retained a mixed archaic-mycenaean culture. I think this is also the most popular view today.

Also, the term you translated into english as "Makendian" should be translated to "Macedonian". "Makednoi" is the standard word Herodotus uses for "Macedonians" throughout his work.

Furthermore I believe that this topic is really not too complicated, it's modern politics and nationalism that have turned it into an allegedly "controversial" issue.

Originally posted by Chilbudios  I've succeeded to take a glance at the book with Google Books, and though indeed Borza doesn't go in detail with all the evidences (I've found a "deconstruction" of the Dorian invasion starting with page 65), he has some bibliographic support, so before accusing him for making groundless statements, one should check that bibliography.

Edited by akritas - 08-Sep-2007 at 13:32

Edited by chicagogeorge - 18-Sep-2007 at 18:46

I have a query for you all guys!

Can you comment on the following:

I visited www.macedonia.com and I wanted to make a research on Herodotus. I was looking for some original quotations regarding the Dorian invasions and this is what I got:

"For in the days of king Deucalion it (i.e. a Makednian tribe) inhabited the land of Phthiotis, then in the time of Dorus, son of Hellen, the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus; driven by the Cadmeians from this Histiaean country it settled about Pindus in the parts called Macedonian; thence again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into Peloponnesus, where it took the name of Dorian."

http://www.macedonia.com/english/history/quotes/

First I got confused as to who did what and where, since the extract was taken out of context. I wondered: how did the author connect the king Deucalion with the notion "Macedonian tribe"? Then he mentions the migration of the Dorians driven by the Cadmeians, and how they settled in the parts called Macedonian. I wasn't sure as to whether this was a correct translation of Herodotus work, so I made another search and found this:    

"LVI. When he heard these verses, Croesus was pleased with them above all, for he thought that a mule would never be king of the Medes instead of a man, and therefore that he and his posterity would never lose his empire. Then he sought very carefully to discover who the mightiest of the Greeks were, whom he should make his friends. [2] He found by inquiry that the chief peoples were the Lacedaemonians among those of Doric, and the Athenians among those of Ionic stock. These races, Ionian and Dorian, were the foremost in ancient time, the first a Pelasgian and the second a Hellenic people. The Pelasgian race has never yet left its home; the Hellenic has wandered often and far. [3] For in the days of king Deucalion1 it inhabited the land of Phthia, then the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus, in the time of Dorus son of Hellen; driven from this Histiaean country by the Cadmeans, it settled about Pindus in the territory called Macedonian; from there again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where it took the name of Dorian.2

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126&layout=&loc=1.56.3

This cleared up the matter a lot to me. So the Ionian tribes known as Pelasgians to Herodotus, were not migrating, but the Hellenic of Doric tribes moved south and migrated from Phthia to the country called Histiaean, then to the territory called Macedonian, and finally to the the Peloponnese, where it took the name of Dorian.

This clearly shows the Doric invasion as confirmed by Herodotus I think.

And it offers evidence that the Macedonian land was merely crossed by the Doric tribes. There is no mention of the Doric tribes being Macedonian! What is your claim?     

The original text in ancient greek is available here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh1050.htm

ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ Δευκαλίωνος βασιλέος οἴκεε γῆν τὴν Φθιῶτιν, ἐπὶ δὲ Δώρου τοῦ Ἕλληνος τὴν ὑπὸ τὴν Ὄσσαν τε καὶ τὸν Ὄλυμπον χώρην, καλεομένην δὲ Ἱστιαιῶτιν· ἐκ δὲ τῆς Ἱστιαιώτιδος ὡς ἐξανέστη ὑπὸ Καδμείων, οἴκεε ἐν Πίνδῳ Μακεδνὸν καλεόμενον· ἐνθεῦτεν δὲ αὖτις ἐς τὴν Δρυοπίδα μετέβη καὶ ἐκ τῆς Δρυοπίδος οὕτω ἐς Πελοπόννησον ἐλθὸν Δωρικὸν ἐκλήθη

for in the reign of Deucalion this race dwelt in Pthiotis, and in the time of Doros the son of Hellen in the land lying below Ossa and Olympos, which is called Histiaiotis; and when it was driven from Histiaiotis by the sons of Cadmos, it dwelt in Pindos and was called Makednian; and thence it moved afterwards to Dryopis, and from Dryopis it came finally to Peloponnesus, and began to be called Dorian

It is not the area but the race that called Makedonian. The area (feminine) cannot be "καλεόμενον" (it) but as above "καλεομένην" (she). For the area of Hestiotis as I have bold out the "καλεομένην" is used. The "καλεόμενον" is clearly attributed to the race. Note that Pindus is also a feminine name and therefore cannot have an "it"-epithet.

Just for the record this happend the 16th century BC according to the Parian stele. A long time before the Argeads Karanos arrival and the establishment of the Kindom.


Edited by Flipper - 28-Nov-2007 at 08:44

THE latest Balkan joke:

God invited the Balkan people to make peace.

He said OK tell me what your claims are so that I might judge fairly:

The Bulgarian says: God please be fair, the Serbians are assimilating us, and the Macedonians are OUR PEOPLE.

The Serbian says: Macedonia is South Serbia and Kosovo is Serbia too.

The Albanian says: I like great Albania God. The Macedonian and Serbian land...and the Greek land too...

The Greek says: God please this is your Holy land, take the Bulgarian out, keep the Slavs in, and the Albanians just send them to EU or wherever...

Then God turned to the Macedonian. And you my son what do you claim?

The Macedonian shitting in his pants, sqeeks:

I CLAIM them ALL!



Edited by Petro Invictus - 30-Nov-2007 at 21:27

Originally posted by Petro Invictus Originally posted by Flipper The original text in ancient greek is available here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh1050.htm ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ Δευκαλίωνος βασιλέος οἴκεε γῆν τὴν Φθιῶτιν, ἐπὶ δὲ Δώρου τοῦ Ἕλληνος τὴν ὑπὸ τὴν Ὄσσαν τε καὶ τὸν Ὄλυμπον χώρην, καλεομένην δὲ Ἱστιαιῶτιν· ἐκ δὲ τῆς Ἱστιαιώτιδος ὡς ἐξανέστη ὑπὸ Καδμείων, οἴκεε ἐν Πίνδῳ Μακεδνὸν καλεόμενον· ἐνθεῦτεν δὲ αὖτις ἐς τὴν Δρυοπίδα μετέβη καὶ ἐκ τῆς Δρυοπίδος οὕτω ἐς Πελοπόννησον ἐλθὸν Δωρικὸν ἐκλήθη So again this is a LINGUISTIC problem not HISTORIC I think, or is it? Are we gonna go through all of them? However, it is unreliable until further comparison... The link I provided however, is quite official of Herodotus... http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/

The original ancient Greek text is unreliable? The official text of herodotus is the text in Greek.

It is both linguistic and historic. I guess ancient greek it is not your field however.

Rawlinson translated it exactly in the same way. The perseus text has an error.  Pindus can not be kaleomenon gender wise, only kaleomenen like Histiaiotis is. It is like calling a woman handsome in english

The translation is the same all over, wherever you search on Herodotus.

http://www.parstimes.com/history/herodotus/persian_wars/clio.html

http://www.greektexts.com/library/Herodotus/Clio/eng/323.html

Some basic Ancient Greek grammar for you...

O καλεόμενος = "he" who is "called"
Η καλεομένην = "she" who is "called"
To καλεόμενον = "it" which is "called"

Moreover look the endings which are of the same gender: Μακεδνὸν καλεόμενον



Edited by Flipper - 30-Nov-2007 at 22:12