Print Page | Close Window

Greeks indigenous?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mediterranean and Europe
Forum Discription: Greece, Macedon, Rome and other cultures such as Celtic and Germanic tribes
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=150
Printed Date: 28-Mar-2024 at 09:48
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Greeks indigenous?
Posted By: Rebelsoul
Subject: Greeks indigenous?
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2004 at 06:48

This topic should probably bear the fruits of more research and contain a substantial bibliography and/or references, but I do it while at work, so I dont have access to any reference material.

 

So, Ill keep it as just a collection of thoughts and remarks and Id love some constructive criticism (that is: try to keep flaming at a possible minimum, if any) by anyone who wishes to contribute to, challenge, criticize these thoughts.

My basic point is this: There was never an invasion of subsequent waves of tribes in the Helladic area and the Greek people are more or less (with the expected intermixtures and absorbing of different elements) indigenous in the area of the southern Balkans.

This sounds rather controversial, as the traditional archeology still cant really abandon the outdated, unfounded and downright stupid, to be honest Indoeuropean theory to move on to face reality: that throughout Europe, genetic, linguistic and archeological evidences suggest a continuum dating from the late Paleolithic era all the way into the classical times, without large waves of outside migration, but mostly with disruptions caused by internal shifting and moving.

One has to see and carefully examine the findings of Cavalli-Sforza and Brian Sykes, for instance. And Colin Renfrew, for a theory that combines the traditional Indo-European deriving theories (Gimbutas Old Europe vs Kurga theory, and its modifications by James Mallory) with the Neolithic roots of the so-called Indo-Europeans in the continent.

Suffice to say, the Indo-European farce has been founded upon purely linguistic evidence (namely: the observation of a Bitish judge in India, that Sanskrit is similar to Greek and Latin) and has nothing to do with archeology. Several dozens archeologists thought their duty to create a framework to justify the linguist construct (extremely popular during the 19th century) and since it was widely accepted nobody actually dared to seriously challenge it without hard evidence, since the falsification of evidence has created a whole Indo-European universe.

Genetic studies (those are indeed hard evidence) show that the supposed IEans and Arryans that invaded Europe and the middle east sometimes between 2000 and 1500, are actually indigenous to Europe, or have lived around these parts from 6500 BC.

Even more recently, a glottochronological study on Bayesian principles (Gray and Atkinson, 2003) suggests that the origin of Indo-European goes back over 11.000 years (9000 BC) so down the drain go all the theories about the invasions during the late 3rd, early 2nd millennia BC.

Nevertheless, the Aryans as depicted by the 19th century scholars and by archeologists like Gimbutas, never existed (even their counterparts who invaded India are a product of wide speculations) and there was never a massive invasion.

In the Helladic area, the first human traces go back to 270.000 BC. The first signs of advanced settlements date to 6500 BC (Sesklon is the most ancient city in Europe, or if city sounds a bit too much, advanced settlement would do the same job). 

Officially, the first Greek culture is the Achaean Mycenean culture, dating from the early 2nd millennia BC, while the Aegean culture and the Minoan culture dating both from the early 3rd millennia BC, were until previously considered non-Greek or more diplomatically pre-Greek, to fit into the Indo European origin of the Greeks proper theory.  According to this, since the proper Greeks didnt reach southern Balkans but only after the invasion of their race (Indo-Europeans) has occurred (that was 2000 BC at the earliest), a culture that was at its height in 2500 BC couldnt be Greek, right?

Newest findings place the Minoan and Aegean civs from the Pelasgian and Pre-Greek side, to the Proto-Greek umbrella term. Meaning, that they were literally the forefathers of the proper Greeks, not some imaginary Easteners who got slaughtered when the advanced Arryans came down the Balkans.

In the same context, the Dorian invasion has been altogether dismissed and the most credible theories point out at the signs of Dorians in the Balkans since 2700 BC, in the area of Macedonia (which was named after them, anyway: Macednos is another name for Dorian) and Epirus, and also to their coexistence with the other Greek races (Aeolian, Ionian, Achaean) in the Greek area, even in Peloponesos, during the 2nd millennia BC.

What do you think?




Replies:
Posted By: Cornellia
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2004 at 07:18

What do I think?  

Well, I know that mitochondrial DNA testing appears to indicate that there were few, if any, mass migrations of people in the days of old.  I remember reading recently that DNA testing seems to show that the Basques and those folks residing in what may be termed as the Celtic fringe areas are from the same stock.

Then there is the matter of the skeletal remains somewhere in South America that some are claiming predate the Clovis man.  If so, this blows holes in the migration across the landbridge from Asia theory for the Americas.

What does this mean?   If true, this means it was a migration of  ideas, language, information and influences rather than people that shaped pre-history.

But that said, DNA testing is not without its inherent problems.  There are questions raised about it AND about the testing procedures itself so I personally am going to withhold judgement until more conclusive data is possible.

But personally, I think the modern rethinking is probably closer to the truth than the mass migration and Indo-European theories of the 19th century.  Remember it was these same folks who refused to believe that the folks who built the mounds (and the culture necessary to support them) throughout the eastern and midwestern part of the US could possibly have been Native Americans.......an idea that has been shot to bits.



-------------
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas


Posted By: Cornellia
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2004 at 07:22

All that said, there is historic evidence of mass migrations - such as Europeans to the Americas, the Celts and Germanic peoples into Italy......so its not that much of a stretch to see the same happening in pre-historic times.

 



-------------
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas


Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2004 at 07:28

I'm aware that the IE theory is losing ground latelly, as well as the fact that researches show that people shpould be considered, generally speaking, indigenus. But there aren't enough data to support the theory that you present Rebelsoul. At the moment I can consider it as an option, at best. Perhaps there's thuth in both theories but genetics can be a bit tricky.

E.g. how would you explain the fact that Linear B was a Greek language written with non-Greek characters (those of Minoan Linear A)?

 

 



-------------
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin


Posted By: Rebelsoul
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2004 at 07:44

Yiannis, "Greek" characters are borrowed from a non-Greek source (Phoenice, according to the dominant theory) so, one could (and should, actually) consider the "Linear B" as the actual "Greek" characters. It's similarity with the Linear A doesn't mean much, of course, since we haven't deciphered the latter yet, but there seems to be ample evidence suggesting that Minoans are a proto-Greek people and not Pre-Greek, as the Indo-European theory implications have imposed upon us.

Yes, my thoughts and speculations are theoretical at best, but Archeogenetics is based on hard evidence - genetic evidence. And since that suggests that the so-called Indo-Europeans from the Black Sea, the "Battle Axe people" are the same as the "peaceful farmers of the Old Europe" - to Giburtas great dismay - I assume that they hold more water than the Arryan theory.

 

Cornelia, I think you are on the right track. Questioning the IE theory (which was build upon racist doctrines and was used to enforce those, with the abomination of the Nazism as its apogee) is the right thing to do. Of course since archeology only in the last decade has started to stray from the dogmatic IE approach, it will take some time to form a more coherent theory on what happened - after finding evidence (and not the other way around, as it happened with the IE thing).



Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2004 at 08:09

Coming back to the Linear B part, it's characters are based not on the Phoenician but on the Linear A characters. My interpretation is that the victorius Myceneans, used the characters of the Minoans to represent their language.

The first Greek alphabet as we know it is the Eboean around 700 BC and it derives from the Phoenician one. But with one great evolution: it was not based on consonants nor was it representing syllabels as the Phoenician one.

It represented different sounds/letters so, for the first time in history, a person who was not Greek could learn the alphabet and manage to reproduce the sounds of the Greek language.



-------------
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin


Posted By: Rebelsoul
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2004 at 08:23

 

Yiannis, we are saying the same thing: that Linear B derived from Linear A and that the later known as "Greek" alphabet is the evolution of a non-Greek (Phoenician) alphabet.

So, Linear B is a Greek alphabet anyway... especially regarding the newest classification of the Minoan people (as proto-Greek rather than pre-Greek).

 



Posted By: ihsan
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2004 at 11:04

Greeks natives of the Aegean? Definitially not (ethnicially, lingually and culturally, at least, but I don't know about genetical)...

E.g. how would you explain the fact that Linear B was a Greek language written with non-Greek characters (those of Minoan Linear A)?

For centuries, Iranians and Turks wrote in their own languages with the Arabic alphabet.



-------------
[IMG]http://img50.exs.cx/img50/6148/ger3.jpg">

Qaghan of the Vast Steppes

http://steppes.proboards23.com - Steppes History Forum


Posted By: Rebelsoul
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2004 at 06:47

Ihsan, a question: if Greeks are indigenous to the Balkan peninsula  (and according to genetic studies they are) how is their culture not?

 

P.S. nice Yurt... it is a Yurt, no?



Posted By: ihsan
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2004 at 17:55

Originally posted by Rebelsoul

Ihsan, a question: if Greeks are indigenous to the Balkan peninsula  (and according to genetic studies they are) how is their culture not?

Genetically, Greeks aren't indigenous, but Aegeans are. I think "Greek genes" that dominate in modern Greece, Macedonia, Western Turkey, Albania (for short, Southern Balkans) aren't "Greek" but "Aegean". 

(Though I'm not an expert on the genetics)

Originally posted by Rebelsoul

P.S. nice Yurt... it is a Yurt, no?

Thanks, yes  It's Ger in Mongolian, Eb/Kerek/Kereg in Old Turkic, y in Kyrgyz and Uyghur and adr in Anatolian Turkish (though, Eb is now Ev, used for "House").



-------------
[IMG]http://img50.exs.cx/img50/6148/ger3.jpg">

Qaghan of the Vast Steppes

http://steppes.proboards23.com - Steppes History Forum


Posted By: Rebelsoul
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2004 at 03:59
Originally posted by ihsan

Genetically, Greeks aren't indigenous, but Aegeans are. I think "Greek genes" that dominate in modern Greece, Macedonia, Western Turkey, Albania (for short, Southern Balkans) aren't "Greek" but "Aegean". 

(Though I'm not an expert on the genetics)

That's the point of the most recent evidence: it points out to the fact that what we call "Greeks" and what we call "Aegeans" are excactly the same people (with a few intermixtures here and there, of course).

Meaning, that the genes are indigenous anyway, wether we call them "Greeks" or "Aegeans" or "Balkanians" or whatever . We use "Greek" because the Greek culture is the one that flurished in both sides of the Aegean first.

Thanks, yes  It's Ger in Mongolian, Eb/Kerek/Kereg in Old Turkic, y in Kyrgyz and Uyghur and adr in Anatolian Turkish (though, Eb is now Ev, used for "House").

Interesting... where does the name "Yurt" derives from? It bears some distant resemblance to "Ger" but not much... is it an anglified "Ger" or what else?



Posted By: Gallipoli
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2004 at 04:14
I remember a serious discussion group talking about this issue some years ago at BBC...

-------------


Posted By: ihsan
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2004 at 16:44

Interesting... where does the name "Yurt" derives from? It bears some distant resemblance to "Ger" but not much... is it an anglified "Ger" or what else?

Ah, Yurt is a Turkic word meaning "Homeland" but I think it was the Russians who adopted this word and started using it for the meaning of a nomadic tent. Similar to "Kurgan" which drives from Turkic Korugan meaning "Preserver" (used for forts).



-------------
[IMG]http://img50.exs.cx/img50/6148/ger3.jpg">

Qaghan of the Vast Steppes

http://steppes.proboards23.com - Steppes History Forum


Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2004 at 16:56
(namely: the observation of a Bitish judge in India, that Sanskrit is similar to Greek and Latin)


A little more than the observation of one judge, but the combined effort of an entire field of study known as comparative linguistics.
The only thing thats disputed is the how and when the spread of languages took place, which is wishy washy anyways seeing as it was so long ago.
That languages are related is not dusputed, all human languages go back to one mother language.

Language and Genes are not the same thing.
Look at Turkey, genetics has virtualy proven that there is great continuity between the people who live there now and the people who lived there in the past, but you'd have a hard time arguing that Turkish was spoken in Anatolia 2000 years ago.

Old migration theories are dead or dying, comparative linguistics isn't.


-------------
Arrrgh!!"


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2004 at 07:50

According to greek mythology,it was Dionysos  that  first  invaded Asia,reached and conquered India,"establishing the worship of greek Gods" there.An Egyptian called Nonos describes this expentition in his "Dionysiaka" book.

Hercules and his clan-"Heracleides"-invade both west Europe and Asia,reaching Gibraltar(Heracleies Styles) from one and India from another side.After some generations Herakleides returned to their homeland,destroying the Achaean kingdoms.Ancient greek sources never mention an "Indoeuropean invasion" or the "coming of Dorians" but the "Return of Heracleides".Hercules was the direct ancestor of Dorian Greeks.

Alexander was competing both his ancestors in the conquest of India.Plutarch mentioned that he crossed the borderline of Hercules conquest after he captured the fort of "Aornos Petra",a place that Hercules failed himself.

Well,they may were the "Aryan invaders" if you consider mythology a reliable source  

I also think Indoeuropean theory as stupid and Minoans as "Proto-Greeks" than "Pre-Greeks" but we still need a new Ventris to depict Linear A to a form of greek language to consider it an established theory than a possible option

 



-------------


Posted By: Nikolaos
Date Posted: 24-Dec-2005 at 18:38
in my THEORY our Geneitics overlap each other actualy Greeks are a at first from the Fertile Creasnt(like all civilizations)the first Greek speaking people if i remeber right came in about 8000BC im not sure i should check that the dorians came from the north east but after all this ancient mixing and matching we pretty much stayed the same with out change until the Turks(who are a Lydian,Greek and mongulain mix  occupied greece for 400 years notice i say occupied not conqured  and thus our genetics are now so mixed that its easer to just say were Indo-Euripean and Middle eastern i hope my Greek Breathern wont attack me for that last remark thank you-Nikolaos Stamas

-------------
Socrates, In the world of knowledge the idea of the good appears last of all, and is seen only with effort



Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2005 at 13:24

I want also to add and the theory-hypothesis that the Greeks were a part of the Pelasgians. As you know the Pelasgians were more ancients from the Greeks. 

The supporters of this theory  have  Herodotus quote (Historia, 1-58) that mention for the Greeks were a part of the Pelasgians when he spoken for the Hellenic language.

[As for the Hellenic race, it has used ever the same language, as I clearly perceive, since it first took its rise; but since the time when it parted off feeble at first from the Pelasgian race, setting forth from a small beginning it has increased to that great number of races which we see,  and chiefly because many Barbarian races have been added to it besides.]

Personnaly I believe that the decryption of the Linear A will be give us a lot of answers. 



-------------


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2005 at 14:14
I'm more sympathetic with the IE invasion theory, mostly because if there was no IE invasion in Greece, in India nor in Britain, as it seems to be the fashion lately, IEs would have sprung from many sources at the same time and that is totally ilogical.

Anyhow, I want to comment that the main indication supporting Minoan alphabets as originally non-Greek is that they have characters that don't fit well in Greek pronunciation. If Linear alphabets would have been concieved to support Greek language writting, then they would be specifically adapted to that language (as, for instance, Turk alphabet is specifically meant for Turkish language) and they are not.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 28-Dec-2005 at 18:26

There is no argument that Greek mythology does not describe an external origin of the Greeks.  However, it does describe Greece as inhabited by other peoples, and that these other peoples are older than they were, just as they were conscious that the Egyptians were older than they, and that they attribute some facits of their culture to their southern neighbors across the Sea just as they did to those peoples which shared their own land. 

In terms of the Minoan script itself, Maju is right.  It was ill-adapted to convey the Greek language, which included characters representing sounds that were alien to the Greek language, and even lacking characters for sounds which did not exist in Minoan.  When the Greeks adopted the Phoenician script, even they had to modify it to suit Greek sounds.  When the Anglo-Saxons adopted the Latin script they had to adapt it to their particular sound system and created character combinations or even new characters to express those sounds, such as "ae", "th", "ch", etc. to convery sounds foreign to Latin script. 

Regardless as to how some try to defend the purity of the Greek language, the state of linguistics is that ancient Greek had adopted vocabulary and place-names (i.e. words of no Greek etymology) mainly from other tribes and peoples inhabiting the same land.  Even those who subscribe to the continuity theory of Greek ethnogenesis in Greece, grudgingly except that.  Once that is accepted, however, they then have to explain how words of similar construction and similar meaning (not just individual words, but a great corpus of words) can be found in languages distantly and geographically separated.



Posted By: Alkiviades
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2006 at 02:50

The Greeks did not adopt the Phoenician script, that's another popular myth that has no solid ground to stand on and is just one of these myths (like IE "invasions" and other similar fairy tales) that refuse to go no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

The Greek alphabet is clearly evolved from the Linear B (which is evolved from Linear A, which bears striking resemblances with older scripts found all over the Greek area and date from the early 4th milenia and on) with some Phoenician influences. The latter apparently can be traced to the 2nd milenia interaction with the Phoenicians, and those interactions can be traced even in the Greek myths that talk about two of the (more than a dozen, actually) Greek "tribes" being of Semitic (and most specificaly Phoenician) origins.

The evolution of the Greek script and language is evident from many fidings and those who deny to accept this either do not have evaluated (or even taken into account) the overwhelming data, or are just refusing to let go of outdated and unfounded theories of the past.

There is one point I definitely agree on: the "Greeks" were not a "pure" race. They were an intermixture of people inhabiting the southern balkans (those under the umbrella term "Pelasgians", the "Minoans" and many others) and people coming from other places (either Anatolia, or northern Balkan and Euxeinos Pontos). Those people gradually formed what became known in the 1st milenia BC as "the Greek people". There was probably a "dominant" class/tribe that imposed the corpus of its language over the others, and that class/tribe seems to have descended to Greece or rose to power in the late 3rd-early 2nd milenia. But they are not "the Greeks", as the Turkic "Bulgarians" are not what later became known as "Bulgarians" - the only trace the latter left in the makeup of the their people is their name, nothing past that.

One should also not forget that being Greek was primarily an issue of culture and not blood - and that is illustrated in the Greek tradition and myths quite eloquently. That is also illustrated in the ease with which the Balkan and Anatolian people got hellenized over the ages.



Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2006 at 22:27

The Greeks did not adopt the Phoenician script, that's another popular myth that has no solid ground to stand on and is just one of these myths (like IE "invasions" and other similar fairy tales) that refuse to go no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

This is really a no-brainer.

1.  The earliest Greek alphabetic inscriptions (i.e. those which occurred before the "classic" Greek alphabet) clearly show that they developed from Phoenician characters.  Just look at the character forms of the Dipylon vase (c. 740 BC).  There is no mistaking the similarities.  They were even written from write to left, just like the Phoenician inscriptions.

2.  The very sequence of Greek letters follows that of the Phoenician letters - a,b,g,d, etc.

3.  The very names of the Greek characters (which have no meaning in Greek) come from the names of the Phoenician characters (which do have meanings).  Example:  alpha, beta, gamma, delta, etc.  are clearly derived from aleph, beth, gimmel, daleth, etc. which mean "ox-head", "house", "camel", "fish", etc.

The Greek alphabet is clearly evolved from the Linear B (which is evolved from Linear A, which bears striking resemblances with older scripts found all over the Greek area and date from the early 4th milenia and on) with some Phoenician influences. The latter apparently can be traced to the 2nd milenia interaction with the Phoenicians, and those interactions can be traced even in the Greek myths that talk about two of the (more than a dozen, actually) Greek "tribes" being of Semitic (and most specificaly Phoenician) origins.

Again, another no-brainer

1.  Any casual inquirer into comparing Linear B and alphabetic scripts can see how utterly disimiliar the two scripts are.

http://www.ancientscripts.com/linearb.html - http://www.ancientscripts.com/linearb.html

  The only possible exception is the Linear B character resembling "t".  One problem:  The Linear B character does not even have the value of "t" but rather has the value "ro".  Even the Classic Cypriot (Greek) script (which indeed came from Linear B) shows the same kinds of disimiliarity.  One Cypriot character resembling "F" has the value "to", another character resembling a lop-sided "E" has the value "ri", and a character resembling "t" has the value "lo".  Any similiarity in sign forms therefore have nothing to do with any similiarity of sound.  The Linear and alphabetic scripts are therefore clearly, unrelated.

2.  The very nature of Linear and alphabetic scripts are different.  Alphabetic scripts were developed with the idea that one character represented one sound.  Linear scripts are what we call "syllabic" scripts.  One character represents more than one sound.  In the case of Linear B we have characters for (in example) "da", "de", "di", "do", "du", etc. as well as characters for (again in examples) "dwe", "dwo", "dwa", "nwa", "pte", "rya", etc. 

3.  Linear B did not contain characters for certain Greek sounds.  For example there is no character for "g", "kh", "b", "th", "l", etc.  Instead, the Mycenaean Greeks had to adapt Linear signs to represent those sounds. 

The evolution of the Greek script and language is evident from many fidings and those who deny to accept this either do not have evaluated (or even taken into account) the overwhelming data, or are just refusing to let go of outdated and unfounded theories of the past.

The only people who consider their findings "overwhelming" against the "outdated" and "unfounded" observations and consensus research among competent scholars are a group of marginalized "nationalist" types who wish to claim some ancient grandeur they feel their own people lack.  This is so utterly pitiful.



Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 12:19
As far as I can make out, the Pelasgians were the indigenous people of the Aegean.

c.4500 BCE, the Thracians arrived.
c.1900-c.1200 BCE The first waves of Indo-European Greeks arrived, mixing with the Pelasgians
c.1200-1100 BCE The wave of Indo-European Illyrians arrive, mixing with the Pelasgians in modern-day Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Albania, and Epirus.

The Greeks were not indigenous -they speak an Indo-European language, and we have recorded waves of invaders over a 700 year time-span.

The Trojans were Pelasgian -the Trojan War was the war that destroyed the dominance of the Pelasgians and asserted that of the Hellenes.

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.

Modern Macedonians are not the same thing as ancient Macedonians.

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

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


Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 15:17

Sharrukin agree with your quote as about the ancient Hellenic language

The history of the Greek Language begins, as far as the surviving texts are concerned, with the Mycenaean civilization at least as early as the13 B.C. Greek dialects were attested as early as the Linear B of the Mycenaean tablets found on Crete and mainland Greece (around 1200 B.C.). After the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization (around 1200 BC) writing disappeared from Greece. In the late ninth to early 8th BC a script based on the Phoenician syllabary was introduced, with unneeded consonant symbols being reused to represent the Greek vowels.The major difreent between Phoenician and the Hellenic is that the first is Consonantal Alphabetic when the second is a C&V Alphabetic. Phoenician alphabet has no vowels. Both scripts belong in Proto-Sinaitic family tree.From the shape of the letters, it is clear that the Greeks adopted the alphabet the Phoenician script, mostly like during the late 9th BC. In fact, Hellene historian Herotodus (5th century BCE) called the Hellenic letters "phoinikeia grammata" (foinikia grammata), which means Phoenician letters When the Hellenes adopted the alphabet; they found letters representing sounds not found in Hellenic. Instead of throwing them away, they modified the extraneous letters to represent vowels. For example, the Phoenician letters 'aleph (which stood for a glottal stop) became the Greek letter alpha (which stands for [a] sound).

source: G.Christides,History of Ancient Hellenic Language,2005

 

 

 



-------------


Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 15:39

St. Francis of Assisi

Modern Macedonians have  Slavic origin when the ancients were Hellenic. As you see defently they are not the same people.

How are you know that Trojans had Pelsgian origin?

Greeks penetrated in the Thracia, at and near the coasts  via the settlement and the founding of the ancient Greek cities-states and the Macedonian involment, specially after Alexander A.

The Greeks had also founded many colonies in the Illyria such as Epidamnos, Apollonia, Issa, Atenica, Razana, Bitola. Also  in three  others cities we had the Hellenic presency at  Corcula, Viss and Hvar. The discover of many Greek artfacts shows the Greek presence in the South Illyria. Wilks in his book The Illyrians  give as excactly the places of those discovers.



-------------


Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 15:45
Well, the modern Macedonians are simply Bulgarian -they speak a Bulgarian language, and everything.

I conducted research into the Pelasgians some time ago, and most of it pointed to a Pelasgic origin for the Trojans. There were some Pelasgic sites and everything that had almost the same religion, artifacts, and so on, as Troy.

And I agree that the Greek penetrated near the Thracian coast, but this was after the Trojan War.

Mr. Wilkes' book is rubbish, no offense. There are plenty of other great works on the Illyrians, but he offers no analysis, and his listing of the finds is in direct contradiction with other historian's facts.

The main Greek colonies in Illyria were in Epirus, which contained both Hellenics and Illyrians.

Are you sure that Atenica, Razana, Issa, and Bitola are Greek colonies? Don't know much about them myself.

I think that Greek traders traded extensively with the Illyrians, but I don't think that the posts in Illyria were as successful as the ones in, say, Sicily.




-------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman


Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 16:06

I diasagree in your opinion as about the work of Wilkes. But is my opinion.

Epirus was the region of the South Illyria. This was my point. Of course we don't have any evidence as about the others regions.

In the mentioned cities we have found plenty of Greeks artfacts and monuments. All of these mentioned in the Hammond (Epirus) and Wilkes(probably you know the book,in the chapter that mentioned the Greeks)

Can you show me any link to read as about your claim that Trojans had Pelasgian Origin? Or more informations

I know only that in Homer's Iliad and Odyssey  Pelasgians were allies of Troy. Nothing more or less mentioned.

 



-------------


Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 16:33

I want also to add some thinks as about the Troyans.

The culture of the Trojans It was known as Northwest Anatolian. This culture extended as far east as the River Sakaria and as far south as Ephesus in Ionia

The Hittites as you  know were  the inhabitants of western Anatolia under the general name of Luwian, and their land as Luwiya. The founding Hittite inscriptions speak of a king of Wilusa known as Alaksandush, which some have compared with Alexander, the other name of the Trojan prince Paris. Alaksandush is a natural Luwian name. The name of Paris's father Priam  has been compared with the Luwian name Piriya-muwas. As you see I think Trjans were more close in the Luwians



-------------


Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 18:27
For more on the Troy-Pelasgian theory, see the work of Edwin Jacques -though he goes a bit far, in asserting that the Illyrians were Pelasgians.

Of course there were Greek artifacts in South Illyria, probably from trade. That doesn't mean that the Illyrians were Greek. I think we are both saying the same thing.


-------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman


Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 18:42

Personnally I don't think so that Illyrians were Pelasgians, because we know very little from both of the ancient nations. Is just an hypothesis. I will try to find your book. Do you have the title  of the book ? The google not help me to much.

Is not only artifacts but and others thinks such as ancient cemeteries and the way of the manufucture. Archaelogies staffs.



-------------


Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 22:13
I don't think the Pelasgians were Illyrians either.

I think that both Illyrians and Hellenes supplanted the existing Pelasgian tribes.

The book is "The Albanians" by Edwin Jacques.

A lot of it is pretty ridiculous, like that the Pelasgians were Illyrians, but it does have a convincing thesis that Trojans were Pelasgian.

BTW, do you think that the Albanians are the descendants of the Illyrians?


-------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman


Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2006 at 07:55

My opinion is that according the linguistics the Albanian language has more closest elements with the Illyrian. Of course we don't have find to much words from the latter  in order to make a better analysies. In your question any  answer is very difficult  to say any affirmative responce. I am positive for sure  but that the albanians were not kaukasian or any other hupothesis that include the Albanians as a nation out of the balkan.

Thank you for the book. I think is published in the Greece and I will read it soon as I can. But also there are several books in Greece that say the same think. Illyrians (south albanians) and Greeks were parts of the Pelasgians. So both of them are indigenous.



-------------


Posted By: Perseas
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2006 at 13:15

Most possible explanation is Trojans to be Luwian speakers. Troy was known to Hittites as Wilusa. There is a treaty between the Hittite King Muwattalli II with the ruler of Wilusa around 1280 and it mentions the existing friendly relations between the rulers of Hattusa and Wilusa for more than 140 years from the moment the treaty was taking place.

To quote:

the basic question asked has been: where was Wilusa situated on the map of the Hittite Kingdom? The text itself leaves no doubt at all about the approximate location of Wilusa:

In 17 Alaksandu is addressed as one of four kings within the Arzawa domains: thou, Alaksandu [of Wilusa], Manabatarhunta [of Seha], Kubantakurunta [of Mira] and Urahattusa [of Haballa], and in 4 Muwattalli relates his father, Mursili [II, ca 13181290] has conquered the entire land of Arzawa and broken it up into individual states: into the states of Mira [definitely added to], Kuwaliya, Seha, Appawiya and Haballa. Wilusa was also mentioned in the same breath with Arzawa in 2.

Wilusa must, therefore, have been a neighbour of Arzawa from time immemorial and, after Arzawa was broken up, it must have been in the immediate vicinity of one of the kingdoms of the new federation of Arzawa states. Therefore, the first task must be to locate Arzawa. By 1959 the reconstruction of Hittite geography in the standard work The Geography of the Hittite Empire by J. Garstang and O.R. Gurney had led to the conclusion that Arzawa and, consequently, all states that came out of it and those that must be regarded as part of it must have been situated in western Asia Minor;

4 Wilusa was already marked on the map included in that volume as the northernmost kingdom of the Arzawa states, north of Seha, on the outhwestern fringes of the Troad .

The rest can be found here...

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:WV0-V1yvgCcJ:www.uni-tuebingen.de/troia/eng/wilusaeng.pdf+wilusa+troy&hl=el - http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:WV0-V1yvgCcJ:www.uni-tu ebingen.de/troia/eng/wilusaeng.pdf+wilusa+troy&hl=el

If it doesnt work you can take also from here..It surely worths a read.

http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/troia/eng/lataczwilusaeng.pdf - http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/troia/eng/lataczwilusaeng.pdf

In 1995 during excavations in Troy, there was discovered a seal dated from 1100 B.C with two names in hyeroglyphic Luwian script which supports fully the theory of the Luwian origin.

http://www.institutoestudiosantiguoegipto.com/los%20pueblos%20del%20mar-ingles.htm - http://www.institutoestudiosantiguoegipto.com/los%20pueblos% 20del%20mar-ingles.htm



-------------
A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.


Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2006 at 15:12

Thanks Aeolus for your links. Specially for the 3nd one



-------------


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2006 at 18:50

It needs to be pointed out that the term "Pelasgians" as used by the ancient Greeks merely stood for peoples who shared the same original lands as they themselves and thought to be much older.  In this case, "Pelasgians" cannot really be used to pinpoint just one ethno-linguistic group, but virtually all non-Greek-speaking groups which shared the homeland.  The term itself had been used to specify even further, just the inhabitants of Arcadia and Argos, while other non-Greek tribes were given other names, such as Leleges, Dryopes, and Caucones (see Strabo, Geography, Book 7.7.1). 

This leads to another idea.  Using the generic sense of the name "Pelasgian", linguists have noted that there were place-names on both sides of the Aegean Sea which have similar non-Greek construction - i.e. those with the ending -assos, such as Parnassus in mainland Greece and Halicarnassus in southeastern Anatolia.  Some have seen this as similiar to Luwian place-names such as Pitassa, Datassa, and Tarhuntassa.  The idea then is that while the majority of Luwians may have migrated into western Anatolia from the Balkans, a branch may have migrated into Greece, where they may have been a Pelasgian group.  In other words, what to the Greeks may have been "Pelasgians" may have been in Anatolia as "Luwians".  In Homer, there were Pelasgians in the Troad (Illiad, Book 2.840-841).  One other item:  "Minyan Ware" found throughout Greece beginning about 2200 BC, under a series of destruction layers throughout Greece, such as at Lerna in the Argolid, was similiar to wares of the same period found at Troy beginning about 2300 BC, both which can be traced back to Balkan predecessors.



Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2006 at 00:06
Hmmm...

I thought that Hittites/Luwians had arrived via the Caucasus, not the Balcans. On the other hand it seems quite clear that the Cycladic culture came from Anatolia.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2006 at 03:21

Maju, there was no evidence of expansion of Pontic-Caspian cultures so deep into Anatolia from the direction of the Caucasus.  The only possible exception was the Kuro-Araxes Culture which had characteristics of the Kurgan cultures north of the Caucasus, but was restricted to Transcaucasia and further south, and is better identified with Hurrian expansion.

On the other hand, we can detect cultural drift from the northeast Balkans into Anatolia via Troy.  Ezero cultural remains (with Kurgan characteristics) have been found in the greater part of Bulgaria, western Anatolia and in the Aegean.  After this, another influx from the Balkans seemed to have occurred baring Minyan Ware into both Greece and Anatolia.  Yet a third wave from the Balkans brought Knobbed Ware into Anatolia, which some identify with the Phrygian migration.  Archaeology involving the Caucasus, however does not detect such cultural flow. 



Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2006 at 06:06
While Ezero is clearly a product of early IE invasions of the Balcans, their culture does not show any typical IE (kurgan) traits. In fact it seems a hybrid of the previous substratum (Karanovo-Gumelnita) and pre-IE Ukranian elements (Dniepr-Don style burials and other cultural traits).

In fact the only culture that is by-product of the Cernavoda-I wave of IEs into the Eastern balcans that shows clear IE traits is Cotofeni, which I suspect is related to Greeks rather than Hittites.

But here I stop because I am less knowledgeable of the processes in Anatolia/Caucasus and of the Bronze Age scenarios.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 03:09

While Ezero is clearly a product of early IE invasions of the Balcans, their culture does not show any typical IE (kurgan) traits. In fact it seems a hybrid of the previous substratum (Karanovo-Gumelnita) and pre-IE Ukranian elements (Dniepr-Don style burials and other cultural traits).

But as a matter of fact Ezero does show typical kurgan traits, including having kurgans themselves.  You are correct in describing it as a hybrid culture, but it is considered part of a complex of cultures extending from the Danube to western Anatolia which also included Baden and Cotofeni.  Because Ezero displays enough of a Kurgan tradition it is considered as a candidate for the spread of Anatolian languages into Anatolia from the Balkans.  It may be relevant to mention that the Hittite culture displayed a pronounced non-IE cultural tradition including religion and succession.  These traditions may have taken route when they were still in the Balkans.

In fact the only culture that is by-product of the Cernavoda-I wave of IEs into the Eastern balcans that shows clear IE traits is Cotofeni, which I suspect is related to Greeks rather than Hittites.

Cernavoda I does indeed show Kurgan dominance, more so than Ezero, but is still considered a hybrid culture.  Cotofeni is considered the least Kurganized of the Pontic-Caspian influenced cultures which stretched from the Danube to western Anatolia, and still displayed dominant Old European characteristics including being completely agricultural, continued use of Old European pottery traditions, and the worship of the Bird-Goddess. 



Posted By: Perseas
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2006 at 12:11

Originally posted by Amedeo

Rebesoul, as some of you mentioned, there is the myth of the Indo-Europeans (and indeed the myth of a Proto-Indo-European language) and the myth that the Greek script is derived from Phoenician. The following post is relevant to the script issue. (I will be posting studies of mine, about languages and the invention of Proto-Indo-European, in the Archeology/Linguistics section.)

The Dispilio Tablet
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/LX/DispilioTablet.html - http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/LX/DispilioTablet.html

Amedeo, there is no need to make a second topic of the same subject.



-------------
A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2006 at 13:19
Originally posted by Sharrukin

While Ezero is clearly a product of early IE invasions of the Balcans, their culture does not show any typical IE (kurgan) traits. In fact it seems a hybrid of the previous substratum (Karanovo-Gumelnita) and pre-IE Ukranian elements (Dniepr-Don style burials and other cultural traits).

But as a matter of fact Ezero does show typical kurgan traits, including having kurgans themselves.  You are correct in describing it as a hybrid culture, but it is considered part of a complex of cultures extending from the Danube to western Anatolia which also included Baden and Cotofeni.  Because Ezero displays enough of a Kurgan tradition it is considered as a candidate for the spread of Anatolian languages into Anatolia from the Balkans.  It may be relevant to mention that the Hittite culture displayed a pronounced non-IE cultural tradition including religion and succession.  These traditions may have taken route when they were still in the Balkans.

I was unaware that Ezero had kurgans, I thought their burials were basically in cist with ochre covering as the pre-IE Ukranians. It's most interesting to find out that the re-arrangement of Eastern Balcans followed some Kurganite logic after all.

In fact the only culture that is by-product of the Cernavoda-I wave of IEs into the Eastern balcans that shows clear IE traits is Cotofeni, which I suspect is related to Greeks rather than Hittites.

Cernavoda I does indeed show Kurgan dominance, more so than Ezero, but is still considered a hybrid culture.  Cotofeni is considered the least Kurganized of the Pontic-Caspian influenced cultures which stretched from the Danube to western Anatolia, and still displayed dominant Old European characteristics including being completely agricultural, continued use of Old European pottery traditions, and the worship of the Bird-Goddess. 



Well, Cernavoda I is more Kurganite than Serednij-Stog II, I think. But you probably know better. I was under the impression that the post-Cernavoda I partition of the Eastern Balcanic area was like this:
  • Ezero: hybrid of natives and pre-IE "Ukranians"
  • Cernavoda II/III: dominated by what seems a quasi-Bubanji-Hum culture, with some late Karanovo/Danubian touches
  • Cotofeni: kurgan with Danubian aculturization
(Note for the not-knowledgeable: Ezero occupied basically Bulgaria and coastal Thrace, Cernavoda II/III occupied Eastern Wallachia and Dobrudja, while Cotofeni was stabilished in NW Bulgaria, W. Wallachia and parts of Transylvania. East of it was the great Baden culture of native "Danubian" character, later replaced by Vucedol, which seems partly IE).


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: RomiosArktos
Date 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.


Posted By: Ellinas
Date 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. 


Posted By: Amedeo
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2006 at 22:59
.


-------------
--Amedeo the Magna-Graecian
** Veritas, Justitia, Pulchritudo, Amoenitas **


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date 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).



Posted By: Theodore Felix
Date 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?


Posted By: dorian
Date 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


Posted By: chicagogeorge
Date 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.
 
http://historyofmacedonia.wordpress.com/2007/03/12/100-most-famous-ancient-macedonian-names/ - http://historyofmacedonia.wordpress.com/2007/03/12/100-most-famous-ancient-macedonian-names/
 
http://historyofmacedonia.wordpress.com/2006/06/17/ancient-macedonian-names/ - http://historyofmacedonia.wordpress.com/2006/06/17/ancient-macedonian-names/
 
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.....


    Posted By: Guests
    Date 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.


    Posted By: Leonidas
    Date 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


    Posted By: chicagogeorge
    Date 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).


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date 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!


    Posted By: chicagogeorge
    Date 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.


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date 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!


    Posted By: Leonidas
    Date 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.ancientscripts.com/linearb.html
    http://www.omniglot.com/writing/linearb.htm - http://www.omniglot.com/writing/linearb.htm





     


    Posted By: chicagogeorge
    Date 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?


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date 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.ancientscripts.com/linearb.html
    http://www.omniglot.com/writing/linearb.htm - 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!


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date 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!


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date 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 - 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...








    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: chicagogeorge
    Date Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 16:35


    Posted By: chicagogeorge
    Date 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:



    Posted By: chicagogeorge
    Date Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 16:42
     

    The theory of Indo-European origins in Southeast Europe from an earlier Anatolian source has received additional confirmation recently. Using a methodology similar to that used in evolutionary biology, Gray and Atkinson [Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin, Nature 426, 435-439] compared 95 present and past languages of the Indo-European family based on a list of 200 basic terms for each.

    The main idea of this innovative work is that languages that diverge from a common source initially tend to have similar vocabularies, but as time progresses, new terms replace older ones, and thus the intersection between the vocabularies of the languages is reduced. This principle can be used to determine the branching pattern of the language family, as well as to time the various splits in the tree. The authors were able to vary many parameters of the input automatically, thus taking into account the many uncertainties of this difficult problem in a systematic manner.

    The results of all analyses, irrespective of the initial assumptions were very robust:

    We test two theories of Indo-European origin: the 'Kurgan expansion' and the 'Anatolian farming' hypotheses. The Kurgan theory centres on possible archaeological evidence for an expansion into Europe and the Near East by Kurgan horsemen beginning in the sixth millennium BP7, 8. In contrast, the Anatolian theory claims that Indo-European languages expanded with the spread of agriculture from Anatolia around 8,0009,500 years BP9. In striking agreement with the Anatolian hypothesis, our analysis of a matrix of 87 languages with 2,449 lexical items produced an estimated age range for the initial Indo-European divergence of between 7,800 and 9,800 years BP. These results were robust to changes in coding procedures, calibration points, rooting of the trees and priors in the bayesian analysis.

    The branching pattern is also in agreement with an independent linguistic analysis of Indo-European languages [Rexova, K., Frynta, D. & Zrzavy, J. Cladistic analysis of languages: Indo-European classification based on lexicostatistical data. Cladistics 19, 120127 (2003)].

    The estimated times strikingly confirm the Neolithic dispersal theory, showing a divergence of Indo-European languages from Anatolian ones, with an independent branching of the mysterious Tocharian language which spread eastwards, and the descent of all other languages from what is almost certain to be a Balkan homeland:



    Posted By: akritas
    Date Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 17:00
    Just add some quotes from the mentioning  theory  (Russell D. Gray & Quentin D. Atkinson  Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin, Nature, Vol 426, 27 NOV 2003 ) that  claim generally  that the pattern and timing of expansion suggested byfour analyses  is consistent with the Anatolian farming theory of Indo-European origin. Radiocarbon analysis of the earliest Neolithic sites across Europe suggests that agriculture arrived in Greece at some time during the ninth millennium BCand had reached as far as Scotland by 5,500 years BC.
     
    In the same work the writers claim that the Hittite lineage diverging from Proto-Indo-European around 8,700 years BC, perhaps reflecting the initial migration out of Anatolia. Tocharian, and the Greco-Armenian lineages are shown as distinct by 7,000 years BC, with all other major groups formed by 5,000 years BC.

    This scenario is consistent with recent genetic studies supporting a Neolithic, Near Eastern contribution to the European gene pool. The consensus tree also shows evidence of a period of rapid divergence giving rise to the Italic, Celtic, Balto-Slavic and perhaps Indo-Iranian families that is intriguingly close to the time suggested for a possible Kurgan expansion. Thus, as observed by Cavalli-Sforza et al., these hypotheses need not be mutually exclusive.



    -------------


    Posted By: chicagogeorge
    Date Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 19:30
    Here is a theory of Indo-European migrations.





    4500BC -- Eneolith -- 3500BC





    3500BC -- Early Bronze -- 2500BC



    2500BC -- Middle Bronze -- 1800BC





    1800BC -- Late Bronze -- 1200 BC





    Hammond, Griffith, and Borza amongst other notable historians speculate that the pool of Proto Greek speakers were settled in Epirus and Western Macedonia before they also spread further south. Any thoughts on this theory?




    Posted By: Flipper
    Date Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 21:16
    So, some theories suggest a common bundle that gave birth to Greek, Phrygian and Armenian speakers?

    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 21:21
    Originally posted by chicagogeorge





    Hammond, Griffith, and Borza amongst other notable historians speculate that the pool of Proto Greek speakers were settled in Epirus and Western Macedonia before they also spread further south. Any thoughts on this theory?




    Well, the theory about collecting in Epirus is very common. As for the Dorians, they are well recorded by many to follow the same route. They were forced to migrate from the central greece to the northern parts and then they came back after hundreds years of isolation.


    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: chicagogeorge
    Date Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 21:38
    Originally posted by Flipper

    So, some theories suggest a common bundle that gave birth to Greek, Phrygian and Armenian speakers?


    That's what seems to be suggested. Do you think Armenians proceeded into Asia Minor then followed by the Phrygians? I know there is a myth that places Armenians north of Thessaly.


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date Posted: 09-Jun-2007 at 15:36
    Originally posted by chicagogeorge

    Originally posted by Flipper

    So, some theories suggest a common bundle that gave birth to Greek, Phrygian and Armenian speakers?


    That's what seems to be suggested. Do you think Armenians proceeded into Asia Minor then followed by the Phrygians? I know there is a myth that places Armenians north of Thessaly.


    Yes! I do...The Phrygians seem to be something like the middle between Greeks and Armenians.

    What about the myth about? I think Herodotus mentioned something as well but i can't remember.


    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: chicagogeorge
    Date Posted: 09-Jun-2007 at 17:49
    There is an ancient story of the Armenian race to this effect: that Armenus of Armenium, a Thessalian city, which lies between Pherae and Larisa on Lake Boebe, as I have already said,26 accompanied Jason into Armenia; and Cyrsilus the Pharsalian and Medius the Larisaean, who accompanied Alexander, say that Armenia was named after him, and that, of the followers of Armenus, some took up their abode in Acilisene, which in earlier times was subject to the Sopheni, whereas others took up their abode in Syspiritis, as far as Calachene and Adiabene, outside the Armenian mountains. They also say that the clothing of the Armenians is Thessalian, for example, the long tunics, which in tragedies are called Thessalian and are girded round the breast; and also the cloaks that are fastened on with clasps, another way in which the tragedians imitated the Thessalians, for the tragedians had to have some alien decoration of this kind; and since the Thessalians in particular wore long robes, probably because they of all the Greeks lived in the most northerly and coldest region, they were the most suitable objects of imitation for actors in their theatrical make-ups. And they say that their style of horsemanship is Thessalian, both theirs and alike that of the Medes. To this the expedition of Jason and the Jasonian monuments bear witness, some of which were built by the sovereigns of the country, just as the temple of Jason at Abdera was built by Parmenion.

    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0198&layout=&loc=11.14.1 - Strabo, Geography


    Strabo talks about the story of Armenus who accompanied Jason in Armenia. In other words at the time of Argonautic expedition which of course happened centuries *before* the Macedonian migration from Pindos and *obviously* at the time being, Thessalians were "in the most northerly and coldest region" since Macedonia didnt exist.


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date Posted: 09-Jun-2007 at 22:05
    Awesome!

    So, the Armenians could have been the last leftovers of the Phrygians in pre-Macedonia and Thessaly?

    The datings you talk about make all sense...I had missed that part of Strabo completely!


    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: Southerneighbr
    Date Posted: 09-Jun-2007 at 23:08
      The Armenians?That is all Greek to me....I dont get itLOL


    Posted By: chicagogeorge
    Date Posted: 10-Jun-2007 at 00:11
    Originally posted by Flipper


     Awesome!

    So, the Armenians could have been the last leftovers of the Phrygians in pre-Macedonia and Thessaly?


    Possibly, Strabo is referring to a very ancient memory of tribal movements. If we are to agree with Indo-European linguists that ancient Hellenic, Armenian, and possibly Phrygian stemmed from the same pool of Indo-Europeans, than on of two things occurred. A) They split early on in the balkans and the Armenians and Phrygians migrated into Asia Minor. Or B), they split occurred somewhere else. Maybe north of the Black Sea, or in Asia Minor, and thus Greeks migrated into the Balkans from that point. I tend to believe the former, since the Armenians aren't mentioned by historians until relatively late. The people who inhabited what became Armenia were the Hayasa

    Originally posted by Flipper


    The datings you talk about make all sense...I had missed that part of Strabo completely!


    Strabo is referring to the journeys of Jason and the Argonauts. They are said to have taken place a few generations before the Trojan war. So probably around 1400 b.c.?



    Posted By: Sharrukin
    Date Posted: 10-Jun-2007 at 12:08
    Jason lived in the generation before the Trojan War.  His son Euneos is mentioned in the Illiad as assisting the Achaeans. (Illiad, Book 7.469).


    Posted By: chicagogeorge
    Date Posted: 10-Jun-2007 at 12:26
    Originally posted by Sharrukin

    Jason lived in the generation before the Trojan War.  His son Euneos is mentioned in the Illiad as assisting the Achaeans. (Illiad, Book 7.469).


    You are right. Thank you. So if we are to take Strabo's story literally, than Proto Armenians moved into Asia Minor closer to 1250b.c. This is what I found on the Armenians.......


    All evidence of historical information came from Greek Historians. One of those famous scholars names Xenophone, gave the first information about Armenia and of Armenian People then others followed: Herotodus, Belos and Houtinos.
     

    The following paragraphs will give us three theories of Armenian Origin.
     
    The first theory was from Herotodos, the Greek historian who lived and wrote his history in 300-270 B.C. and speaks about Armens during the war between Persia & Greece. He has been in the army and personally collected all the information and dates of history. According to him, Phrygians were form of Indo-European tribes. They came from Balkan Peninsula to Macedonia and Thracia. This immigration is dated 1200-1300 B.C. They stayed in this geographical area, but by the time they moved towards Capadocia (1) and Araradian Ashkhar (2), the Armens became one of the Phrygian Tribe. Hovhanness Catholicos who was an eminent Armenian Historian agrees to this itinerary, but both historians do not give any source of their information.
     
    Another Greek Historian Blenus gives some more information and details. For him these Phrygians have been immigrated from central Asia, from the Russian plateau to the Danubian shores, then to the Balkans, Greece, then to Armenia. He gives another name to this Phrygian tribe, he calls them Askanas. Other scholars accept this especially because the Bible states that the Askanas were Phrygians and Armenians.
     
    Armens came to Armenia when the Hittitian Kingdom was destroyed; at the time Greeks were establishing cities in Asia Minor. At the same time period a barbarian tribe called Scythians came from the north and destroyed the Urartu Kingdom. Urartu was the famous Kingdom and Civilization in the Araradian Territories. Urartu's leaders were wise and had powerful Kings who ruled from 885-535 B.C. and created a very rich heritage. Scythians attacked the Armens in 617-609 B.C., but the Armens gained their friendship and survived. They got the privilege over other tribes, even forced their nationa and moral characteristics over the local people, including Urartus and Nayiries.
     
     
    The second theory is from the famous Greek geographer Strabo, who wrote his history in the 2nd Century B.C. He speaks about a history book, written by two generals from Alexander the Great's Army, Girlos of Pharsala and Medios of Lareso. They gave the name of a certain country called Thessalia, were there was a city called Armenia, and the King's name was Armenos. Armenos with another King Jasos came to Armenia and won a very big war. They conquered the country and by his name the people became Armens. But this view is rejected, because Alexander the Great has never been in Armenia. His generals could not have known this to give eyewitness information; besides it is not clear if Stropon had seen nor read the book.
     
    The third theory is legendary and belongs to the great Armenian poet and historian Movses Khorenatzi. According to Khorenatzi there was a famous Assyrian scientist Mar Appar Gadina, who was assigned by the Armenian King Vagharshak to go to Persia and to find out Armenian History. Gadina went to Persia, where in the Kings library he discovered the " History of the First Ancestors". That study, according to Khorenatzi was in Greek and Mar Appas Gadina translated into Assyrian. But we do not have neither Greek nor Assyrian versions of that book. In this "Book" Khorenatzi sees and develops Haig's legend and states that our country is called Hayastan and because of Haig, Armenians are called Hays. The Bible says Haig was the grandson of Japhet, son of Noah.
     
    After giving all these points of view, it is possible to conclude by saying that Armens came from Europe with Phrygians and settled in Armenia by 800 B.C. We call ourselves Hye or Hay, because the Hayassa tribe were more advanced by culture and were the oldest tribe in that area, from the14th century. According to Atontz the Greeks first called Armenians "Armens", found the name in the history of Greek Historian Hegedios in 7th century B.C. Armen or Armenia is mentioned for the first time in history by the Persian King of Kings Darius in the 6th century B.C., when on the occasion of his glorious victory he erected a very huge monument Bissoutun. On that monument are the names of the people he attacked and the details of his battles.
     
     According to myths and tradition mentioned by ancient historians, it is plausible that Phrygians were related to the Armenians, and that both were closely related to Hellenic tribes.
    a


    Posted By: Yiannis
    Date Posted: 10-Jun-2007 at 15:08
    Originally posted by chicagogeorge


    The first theory was from Herotodos, the Greek historian who lived and wrote his history in 300-270 B.C.
     
    Herodotus lived  in the 5th century BC (484 425)


    -------------
    The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

    Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin


    Posted By: chicagogeorge
    Date Posted: 10-Jun-2007 at 16:05
    ^^
    Opps! I knew that. I guess my source made the error. I should have read over it more carefully.


    Posted By: Sharrukin
    Date Posted: 11-Jun-2007 at 02:26
    One of the most intriguing sources comes from the Assyrian inscriptions.  In the first year of the Assyrian king Tiglathpileser I (c. 1114-1076 BC), he had to contend with an invasion of hordes known as the Mushki.  Later Assyrian sources aid us in identifying the Mushki as the Phrygians.  The Mushki had 50 years previously invaded and occupied the northwestern provinces of the Assyrian Empire and were now invading a province adjacent to the Assyrian homeland itself.  Tiglathpileser utterly defeated them and the remnants settled in northern Mesopotamia, which the later Macedonians knew as "Mygdones" which had apparent Phrygian or Mysian affinities (Strabo, Geography 11.14.2, 16.1.23). 
     
    In the next year, Tiglathpileser had to contend with another horde, apparently following on the heals of the Mushki, known as the Urume.  These were likewise defeated and they settled in the mountainous area to the northwest of Mesopotamia.  Both later Urartian and Assyrian inscriptions refer to the land as either Urme or Arme, in which we may first have an allusion to the name "Armenian".  This land located in a district known as Shubria is consistent with the earliest known region of Armenian habitation, notably in western Armenia, the other parts of Armenia being inhabited by other major tribes such as the Alarodians (Urartians), Saspires, and Matienians, (Herodotus, Book 3.93 - 13th province; 3.94 - 18 province).


    Posted By: chicagogeorge
    Date Posted: 11-Jun-2007 at 08:54
    Some linguists accept an ``Armeno-Greek hypothesis,'' that Armenian and Greek are particularly close subfamilies, yet Armenian is Satem and Greek is Centum.

    Gimbutas' theory involves successive waves of invasion from the Ukrainian steppes to the Balkans or Central Europe. This is exactly compatible with  the"Kurgan wave 1'' (ca 4300 BC) led to the splitoff of Hittite, ``Kurgan wave 2'' (ca 3600 BC) led to the splitoff of Greek, and ``Kurgan wave 3'' (ca 3000 BC) led to the final separation of the Satem subfamilies. This clearly locates the change from Centum to Satem in time and space: it occured in the Pit Grave (Yamnaya) culture of the Pontic-Caspian steppes during the middle of the 4th millenium BC.

    In the Gimbutas theory the close affinity of Greek and Armenian is no surprise: they each migrated southwest from the Kurgan homeland in Scythia, but a few centuries apart, Greek just before and Armenian just after the K-->S sound change.

     


    Posted By: chicagogeorge
    Date Posted: 11-Jun-2007 at 09:23
    This was the professor that I was referring to in my earlier post on the Greek migrations at around 3200bc.
     
     
    Colemans work (Cornell University) which supports the newer theories expressed about the first Greeks.

    Quote:

    An archaeological scenario for the Coming of the Greeks ca. 3200 B.C.

    I here argue that the Indo-European language that eventually became Greek came to Greece with a group of people who arrived from the north at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age in the later fourth millennium B.C.[1] These proto-Greeks entered a landscape that had been largely depopulated for centuries before their arrival and they soon came to dominate most of the mainland of Greece (but not the Cycladic islands or Crete). Influenced by the Cycladic islanders, they eventually created the Early Helladic civilization of the third millennium B.C. The later Bronze Age population of mainland Greece was largely descended from that of the EBA and the Greek language of the Linear B texts of the Late Bronze Age gradually developed from the language or languages spoken then. The pre-Greek linguistic substrate in Greek (e.g., words with endings in -ssos and -nthos) may have entered Greek from the language spoken by the previous LN II inhabitants of the Aegean area and probably also by their EBA descendants in the Cyclades and Crete. The essay begins with a critique of the current theory that the proto-Greeks entered Greece at the end of the second phase of the Early Helladic period ca. 2400/2200 B.C. and concludes that it is less likely than it formerly seemed to be. This is followed by details of the scenario here advocated, which is supported by the differences in character between the EBA culture of the Greek mainland and that of the latest Neolithic culture and by the probable existence of a hiatus of occupation between the end of the Neolithic era and the beginning of the EBA. Correlations with the evidence for immigrations of Indo-European speakers to the Balkan countries to the north of Greece are then sketched and arguments briefly presented for an association of the pre-Greek linguistic substrate with the LN II inhabitants. The conclusions deal with some general questions related to the new scenario.


    Posted By: Guests
    Date Posted: 26-Jan-2010 at 14:53

    Come on.We all know that,they came from Adana.haven't you heard 300 adanali's ?


    Adana MErkez Akilli olsun herkes.




    Posted By: Shield-of-Dardania
    Date Posted: 29-Mar-2010 at 04:34
    Originally posted by ihsan

    Ah, Yurt is a Turkic word meaning "Homeland" but I think it was the Russians who adopted this word and started using it for the meaning of a nomadic tent. Similar to "Kurgan" which drives from Turkic Korugan meaning "Preserver" (used for forts).
    Isn't that also related to the Mongol 'orda' - which meant 'camp' or 'army' - which gave rise to the English 'horde' and the language name 'Urdu' - which is a blend of Hindi and Persian? 


    -------------
    History makes everything. Everything is history in the making.


    Posted By: Shield-of-Dardania
    Date Posted: 29-Mar-2010 at 04:44
    Originally posted by Sharrukin

    One of the most intriguing sources comes from the Assyrian inscriptions.  In the first year of the Assyrian king Tiglathpileser I (c. 1114-1076 BC), he had to contend with an invasion of hordes known as the Mushki.  Later Assyrian sources aid us in identifying the Mushki as the Phrygians.  The Mushki had 50 years previously invaded and occupied the northwestern provinces of the Assyrian Empire and were now invading a province adjacent to the Assyrian homeland itself.  Tiglathpileser utterly defeated them and the remnants settled in northern Mesopotamia, which the later Macedonians knew as "Mygdones" which had apparent Phrygian or Mysian affinities (Strabo, Geography 11.14.2, 16.1.23). 
    Somehow this 'Mushki' sounds to me as tantalisngly close to 'Meshqi', i.e. those guys who, supposedly, went up north, from somewhere south, and founded the 'Moskva' kingdom, i.e. ancient Moscow.


    -------------
    History makes everything. Everything is history in the making.


    Posted By: Sharrukin
    Date Posted: 29-Mar-2010 at 22:23

    "Moskva" (earlier, Moskov) is derived from the name of the nearby river, the name of which is of unknown origin, but may have a Finno-Ugrian etymology.  The Finno-Ugrian Merya lived in the vicinity, in the 12th century AD, when it was first mentioned as a settlement. 

    The attempt by some to link the name to the name of some ancient peoples of Anatolia just does not have substance.  Caution should always be used when trying to equate an ethnonym with another.  In this case there is no documentation showing the migration of peoples from south of the Caucasus, all the way to Moscow.  Much of the interpretation of "Biblical prophesy" for instance, depends on these kinds leaps of faith (and geography). 


    Posted By: opuslola
    Date Posted: 29-Mar-2010 at 23:00
    Sharrukin! It seems that we must welcome you back, since it seems you have 1138 posts to your credit! So! Where have you been all of my life on this site? Laugh!

    All in all the above responses on this particular subject were mostly great ones! Lots of good thinking, it seems!

    But, rather than assume that a certain blood-line was the origin of the Greek language, why can't we assume that the "language" was forced upon those people who had to learn it or die? What do you think the word "tyrant" to mean?

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tyrant

    Also, history, as we know it, is repleate with references to either the total decimation of the indigeneous population, or the reported deportations of the same!

    So, in my not to humble opinion (chuckle) I would propose that if a great tyrant took over any small nation today, and ordered, upon the force of death, that all citizens of that place adopt Greek as the "new" national language, and if his successors were also successful in keeping the implementation going, then almost any nation, could be converted within a couple of generations! Force is, and always has been, a good guarantee of adoption! Smile!

    Thus academia, based upon the death threat, makes one a good learner and a good teacher! (All better to speak to you my dear!) chuckle!

    Anyway, it is good to see one of the older members of this site, again amongst the living!

    Regards,

    -------------
    http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


    Posted By: Sharrukin
    Date Posted: 03-Apr-2010 at 21:02
    Highly doubtful.  The known pattern of the earliest state-formations amongst the Greeks shows a pronounced regionalism.  There is no evidence of some all-encompassing tyrant imposing the Greek language thoughout the entire region.  As for the "decimation of the indigenous populaton" the genetics is highly conclusive there.  Greeks have had different origins.  If you consider, for instance, R1a1 as "foreign", well, this haplotype only represents about 10% of the Greek population, while the rest of the Greek population has an earlier Middle Eastern origin.  No "decimation" (at least on a large scale) ever occured.  Ultimately, you don't need some direct intervention of a "tyrant" or a "genocide" to explain why the Greek language became dominant.  Social and economic causes (which we can actually observe) are adequate to explain this.


    Posted By: eaglecap
    Date Posted: 05-Apr-2010 at 11:14
    Originally posted by Sharrukin

    Highly doubtful.  The known pattern of the earliest state-formations amongst the Greeks shows a pronounced regionalism.  There is no evidence of some all-encompassing tyrant imposing the Greek language thoughout the entire region.  As for the "decimation of the indigenous populaton" the genetics is highly conclusive there.  Greeks have had different origins.  If you consider, for instance, R1a1 as "foreign", well, this haplotype only represents about 10% of the Greek population, while the rest of the Greek population has an earlier Middle Eastern origin.  No "decimation" (at least on a large scale) ever occured.  Ultimately, you don't need some direct intervention of a "tyrant" or a "genocide" to explain why the Greek language became dominant.  Social and economic causes (which we can actually observe) are adequate to explain this.


    Genetic studies are not conclusive and...
    It depends on the study and the methodology used. I have seen studies that give the Greeks some connection to the ancients but this link is found throughout the Mediterranean. It is like my old History instructor use to say, "the Greeks are the decendants of the ancient Greeks plus everyone else who came along." Even the classical Greeks were far from pure and had intermixed with pre-Greek cultures.

    I would say the connection to the Byzantines is much greater so I refer to them as being my ancestors.

    No "decimation" (at least on a large scale) ever occured.

    I am not sure what period you are talking about but no this is not true. The Seljuk and Ottoman Turk invasions were very disruptive for Greece and all of the Balkans. I am sure you are talking about the periods prior to the Turkic invasions though. Please clarify this!

    Alexander the Great, because there were so many Greek dialects, unified the language through Koine Greek. A common language helped spread Hellenism throughout his new Empire, too bad he died so young.

    I believe what you state is true to a point but it would take more than a paragraph to answer this question.

    I am still curious are you related to the people of the New Macedonian Republic, who are a mixed bag themselves. I have no problem with them using this name myself. New Macedonian Republic sound nice




    -------------
    Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε


    Posted By: Sharrukin
    Date Posted: 05-Apr-2010 at 21:19
    Genetic studies are not conclusive and...
    It depends on the study and the methodology used. I have seen studies that give the Greeks some connection to the ancients but this link is found throughout the Mediterranean. It is like my old History instructor use to say, "the Greeks are the decendants of the ancient Greeks plus everyone else who came along." Even the classical Greeks were far from pure and had intermixed with pre-Greek cultures.

    I would say the connection to the Byzantines is much greater so I refer to them as being my ancestors.

    No "decimation" (at least on a large scale) ever occured.

    I am not sure what period you are talking about but no this is not true. The Seljuk and Ottoman Turk invasions were very disruptive for Greece and all of the Balkans. I am sure you are talking about the periods prior to the Turkic invasions though. Please clarify this!

    Alexander the Great, because there were so many Greek dialects, unified the language through Koine Greek. A common language helped spread Hellenism throughout his new Empire, too bad he died so young.

    I believe what you state is true to a point but it would take more than a paragraph to answer this question.
     
    Hello eaglecap,
     
    The time period that I was addressing (at least according to my understanding of what opuslola was referring to) was the broad period of the Neolithic to the early Bronze Age (i.e. the period prior to the "Mycenaean Period" when Greek is first documented by the evidence of script).
     
    The genetic studies I'm referring to can be summed up here:
     
    http://dienekes.50webs.com/arp/articles/greeknry/ - http://dienekes.50webs.com/arp/articles/greeknry/
     
    where the clades in question are evaluated as being the mostly European developments of clades from Asia and Africa and are given prehistoric origins.
     
    I am still curious are you related to the people of the New Macedonian Republic, who are a mixed bag themselves. I have no problem with them using this name myself. New Macedonian Republic sound nice
     
    I'm an hispanic from Los Angeles.  The only relationship I have to a "Macedonia" is that a great-grandmother, on my father's side was named "Macedonia", and she was Mexican.


    Posted By: Shield-of-Dardania
    Date Posted: 05-Apr-2010 at 22:53
    Originally posted by opuslola

    But, rather than assume that a certain blood-line was the origin of the Greek language, why can't we assume that the "language" was forced upon those people who had to learn it or die? What do you think the word "tyrant" to mean?
    I's just thinking, Agamemnon would have made a pretty good candidate, wouldn't he?
     
    Originally posted by Sharrukin

    If you consider, for instance, R1a1 as "foreign", well, this haplotype only represents about 10% of the Greek population, while the rest of the Greek population has an earlier Middle Eastern origin.  No "decimation" (at least on a large scale) ever occured. 
    No freakin wonder! I always thought that many Greeks look so similar to Arabs and Iranians, and vice versa. Just a personal observation. Only perhaps the latter two might have picked up a relatively greater proportion of Asiatic genes over the many millennia. 


    -------------
    History makes everything. Everything is history in the making.


    Posted By: Shield-of-Dardania
    Date Posted: 05-Apr-2010 at 23:06
    Originally posted by Sharrukin

    The attempt by some to link the name to the name of some ancient peoples of Anatolia just does not have substance.  Caution should always be used when trying to equate an ethnonym with another.  In this case there is no documentation showing the migration of peoples from south of the Caucasus, all the way to Moscow.  Much of the interpretation of "Biblical prophesy" for instance, depends on these kinds leaps of faith (and geography). 
    Well, you can't really tell sometimes, Shar. Cos those guys were nomadic peoples always on the move. If the Mongols could reach Palestine and Egypt, well then, anything, any leap, is possible.
     
    How about the genetics? Any indications from that department?


    -------------
    History makes everything. Everything is history in the making.


    Posted By: Sharrukin
    Date Posted: 05-Apr-2010 at 23:27
    Originally posted by opuslola

    But, rather than assume that a certain blood-line was the origin of the Greek language, why can't we assume that the "language" was forced upon those people who had to learn it or die? What do you think the word "tyrant" to mean?
    I's just thinking, Agamemnon would have made a pretty good candidate, wouldn't he?
     
    The problem here is that by the time of Agammemnon, the Greek language was already spread out in the mainland as well as in the Aegean.
     
    Originally posted by Sharrukin

    The attempt by some to link the name to the name of some ancient peoples of Anatolia just does not have substance.  Caution should always be used when trying to equate an ethnonym with another.  In this case there is no documentation showing the migration of peoples from south of the Caucasus, all the way to Moscow.  Much of the interpretation of "Biblical prophesy" for instance, depends on these kinds leaps of faith (and geography). 
    Well, you can't really tell sometimes, Shar. Cos those guys were nomadic peoples always on the move. If the Mongols could reach Palestine and Egypt, well then, anything, any leap, is possible.
     
    True, but in the case of the Mongols, it was an organized army, not a tribal migration.  There are no Mongol tribes in the Middle East.


    Posted By: Shield-of-Dardania
    Date Posted: 13-Apr-2010 at 04:18
    But if an army had stayed and settled, which it could do, it could have provided the impetus, for some of the tribes they left behind, to later amble along, gradually, in their wake.
     
    By the way, the Mongols did leave numerous descendant tribes in the northern Indian region, e.g. Pakistan and Afghanistan. That's just next door to Iran, the eastern gateway to West Asia.
     


    -------------
    History makes everything. Everything is history in the making.


    Posted By: Sharrukin
    Date Posted: 13-Apr-2010 at 23:26
    But if an army had stayed and settled, which it could do, it could have provided the impetus, for some of the tribes they left behind, to later amble along, gradually, in their wake. 
     
    To better help you in your thinking, there was already a precedent to the Mongol invasion of the Middle East - the invasion of a branch of the Oghuz Turks known as the Seljuqs.  They conquered Persia and then proceeded into conquering the Middle East.  A branch of these settled Anatolia and established the Sultanate of Rum.  They were followed by other Turkic tribes. 
     
    Now, here's the problem.  Historically, there are consistent routes of migration.  Nomads eventually settled agricultural regions.  Northerners always migrated south.  At the time of writing, I cannot think of agricultural peoples migrating into nomadic regions unless the agricultural region proved to be sparse enough not to feed the population.  In the case of the Caucasus region, history and archaeology shows migration from the north to the south, not the other way around. 
     
    By the way, the Mongols did leave numerous descendant tribes in the northern Indian region, e.g. Pakistan and Afghanistan. That's just next door to Iran, the eastern gateway to West Asia.
     
    Historic Afghanistan bordered the steppe.  From the beginning of history it had always been subject to invasion of nomads, hence this is really not surprising.  But, the core of our conversation had to do with a people which you surmise migrated north through the Caucasus to the region of Moscow, and gave their name to the place.  There is no record of such a movement and there is no historical precedent for such. 


    Posted By: archaiokapilos
    Date Posted: 15-Mar-2011 at 08:35
    there is no great similarity of Greeks with Arabs but there is some similarity with Iranians ( those that look European ). As for genetics, well Greeks have a predominantly Balkan-South European origin with some influences from North Europe and the Middle East


    Posted By: shock and thunder
    Date Posted: 18-Aug-2015 at 11:50
    Originally posted by Rebelsoul

    My basic point is this: There was never an invasion of subsequent waves of tribes in the Helladic area and the Greek people are more or less (with the expected intermixtures and absorbing of different elements) indigenous in the area of the southern Balkans.


    Very old thread, and I must confess to not reading most of it at this time, but I must lol at this comment.

    There have been constant waves of invasions into the Balkans and into Greece even all the way into the Peloponnese. 

    The Greeks themselves said that they came from elsewhere, and that the people who lived there already were the Pelasgians


    Posted By: Aeoli
    Date Posted: 19-Aug-2015 at 05:26
    Originally posted by archaiokapilos

    there is no great similarity of Greeks with Arabs but there is some similarity with Iranians ( those that look European ). As for genetics, well Greeks have a predominantly Balkan-South European origin with some influences from North Europe and the Middle East

    What about Antiochian Greeks? In Turkey some sources add their population into the Greek population and say with that


    Posted By: Aeoli
    Date Posted: 19-Aug-2015 at 05:39
    Originally posted by archaiokapilos

    there is no great similarity of Greeks with Arabs but there is some similarity with Iranians ( those that look European ). As for genetics, well Greeks have a predominantly Balkan-South European origin with some influences from North Europe and the Middle East

    same as  I didn't read all posts. 

    During the defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, many fair hair muslim and Turkificated people came to Anatolia, Albanians, Muslim Georgian and Bosnian radiply Turkificated in Turkish Rebuplic

    so I think that same thing could happen in the period of rising Islam. Many hellenised Byzantine Arab, could mix with  children of real Hellen.


    Posted By: chicagogeorge
    Date Posted: 10-Aug-2017 at 23:05
    No Greeks are not indigenous. Like all Indo Europeans they originated north of the Black Sea and began to migrated 6000 years ago, and the tribes that would develop the Greek language arrived first in northern Greece, Epirus and Western Macedonia around 2300bc and migrated south thereafter


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDF8o5bX6YY&t=637s


    Posted By: red clay
    Date Posted: 11-Aug-2017 at 08:58
    Welcome back. We don't get to see many long timers.

    -------------
    "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
    Unknown.


    Posted By: chicagogeorge
    Date Posted: 11-Aug-2017 at 16:32
    Originally posted by red clay

    Welcome back. We don't get to see many long timers.


    Thank you. I think I'll start posting here again. 


    Posted By: CedricEmrys
    Date Posted: 20-Feb-2018 at 11:15
    I think they may have been Aryana descents, as well as migrating Celts, there is significant evidence that many of the people’s in Italy were descendants of the Celts from the Hallstatt culture, could the northern Greeks have been as well? Mind you I am not at all an expert in Greece, my area of study is the ancient Keltoi and the Italic peoples.

    -------------
    Buaidh no bàs



    Print Page | Close Window

    Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
    Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com