QuoteReplyTopic: Why not Hellas? Posted: 01-Sep-2005 at 19:56
For example they make the hypothesis that when 10.000
years ago Sahara became a desert, perhaps the Berbers migrated to
Crete creating the Minoan civilization. In other words, instead of
trying to find a way to survive they constructed ships, and went to
Crete! Did not the authors really wonder about the probability that
Cretans, rulers of the high seas at the time, traveled the opposite
way, as many ancient sources refer?
I don't know much about Cretan anthropology but Berbers seem to be
direct descendants from Paleolithic populations of the area (Gafsa
culture). At that time Crete and the Greek islands were deserted and
mainland Greece doesn't seem to have been either a very densely
populated region.
The date of 10,000 years ago is obviously a gross oversimplification as
the Sahara didn't became a desert till much later, when agriculture was
already extended through all the Mediterranean basin.
I'm not trying to defend anything but Neolithic North Africa is still
pretty much unknown and therefore hides some potential in explaning the
expansion of Meditearranean Neolithic and related cultures. For
instance, in Southern Spain there is an unconnected early culture
dating from the very beginnings of European Neolithic in the 6th
milennium... while nothing is proven about its origins some North
African connection can't be discarded either considering the limited
ammout of info we have about North African Neolithic.
Is all this about Y-chromosome haplogroups or what?
And that Eurovision song... (I am joking)
Actually I have a high place in my heart for Norwegians.
They are the silent "always-there" people who only speak when they have something of essence to say. And that is a virtue!
The Hellenes were first called "" ("Graeki" with the letter "G" pronounced "Y" as in "Yard") by the Illirians (present day Italians), when the former arrived in Italy from ancient Dodoni (city in Epirus, Greece) as colonists. According to another source, these colonists named or ("Graii" or "Graeci"), came to Italy from ("Graia"), an ancient town in Viotia, Greece (maybe contemporary Tanagra) and founded a new Hellenic Colony there with the name Nea Polis (which means New City, later to become known as Napoli, or Naples in English). This was the very first time that the Latins came close to the Hellenes (Greeks) and thus named them all "Graeci" after the citizens of Graia; and given that most modern European languages originate from Latin, the word "Graecus" became the root for all other respective names for and () ("Hellen" and "Hellas" or "Hellada"), e.g. Greek-Greece, Grec-Grèce, Grieche-Griechenland. Maybe the name "Hellenes" came from a greek tribe which lived near Dodoni and was called (S)Elli and this name was spread as Dodoni was one of the main ancient greek religion centers.
Later on, during the first Christian centuries, the word " " (Hellenes) became a synonym to "heathen", in order to distinguish the followers of old faith from those of the new -official- religion, and along with ("Romii", originating from "Romans") and (=of Greece), the name (Graeki) stayed in use until the foundation of the new Hellenic state in 1832AC. From that time on, the ancient terms Hellas and Hellines are used primarily in the interior of this small peninsula in South-East Europe to identify the country and its inhabitants, while the ones originating from Graeci remain in the vocabularies of the European languages.
Not really familiar to Hebrew but I know that the Hellinic translation of O.Testament Zechariyah chap. 9. 13 mentions the sons of Hellas but while searching for it online, I found that the english translated text uses the name "Javan". Don't know what to make of it.
Yiannis is correct that "Javan" meant "Ionians", at least originally, but was extended to include all Greeks. It was taken from more archaic Greek form Iavones, thus the form Yavan which was known among the Hebrews, Phoenicians, and Aramaeans. This points to an Archaic period familiarity amongst the peoples involved. The Aramaic word actually made it to India, where the Greeks were known as Yavanas. The Persian form Yauna derives from the later Greek form Iones, at the time of the conquest of Lydia (c. 547 BC). Its kind of ironic that the Persian form also made it to India, where Greeks were also known as Yonas.
Thereinafter Aris Poulianos studied other 10.000 individuals and hundreds of skeletal remains from various Eurasian sites. The Greek groups, which were less represented in his PhD thesis (Aegeans, Peloponnesians, Pindos mountains), were finally studied after his return to Greece in 1965.
THE ORIGINS OF THE CRETANS AND AEGEANS
The basic conclusion (A. Poulianos 1971,1999) is that the contemporary population of Crete (based on a sample of 3.000 individuals) and the Aegean sea as a whole including the hinterland of Thrace and Asia Minor remained unaltered at least since the Minoan era and belongs to the aegean indigenous anthropological type. The migrations, which occurred during several historical periods, resulted in some light variations, but did not change the morphology of the original type. The influences do not exceed more than 1-3 % and this homogeneity betrays once again that the dwellers of the Aegean basin in general are locally born, at least since the Mesolithic epoch, that is 15.000 years BP (before present).
In 1987, the Italian Professor of Anthropology G. Facini during the 2nd World Congress of Palaeoanthropology in Torino, announced the existence of a 50.000 years human skeleton from Crete, with a morphology similar to the contemporary Homo sapiens sapiens and not that of the Neanderthal man. The announcement never reached the Greek Media, once the Hellenic Ministry for Culture stayed, as it was expected, indifferent!
In January of 1999, the medical magazine Tissue Antigens (vol.53) published an article based on blood studies, regarding the origin of Cretans. The final conclusion of this article is that the today inhabitants of Crete have a greater kinship to the Berbers, to the Semites and even to the Japanese than to the Greeks (who, as they allege, arrived 4.000 years ago in Greece!). In this way the origin of Cretans is transferred to Africa or to the Middle East 10.000 years ago. Seven professors from Spain and three from Greece sign the article and unfortunately they reached the above conclusion following a route of low scientific standards, since they were based on a sample of only 135 individuals only the HLA gene is studied. They also little respected deontology, because ignoring the previous and more accurate anthropological bibliography, since the phenotype is represented by thousands of genes. Along this slippery way, also the work of A. Mourant et al: The distribution of human blood groups and other polymorphisms, University of Oxford, 1976, pp 1055, is missing from their bibliography. In this edition it is referred that the HLA gene is an unreliable basis to exact conclusions on such matters, since it makes the inhabitants of Basque, Iceland and Congo to have bonds of kinship. It may be noted that views of this kind appeared since 1965, i.e. in a time when studies of molecular biology based on human DNA were not yet started, curiously coordinated toward the same direction (for example see the opposing Athens newspaper Athinaiki, 15/4/1966 : Cretans do not derive from Phoenicians and Semites.).
As for their historical, linguistic and archaeological arguments the situation is no better. For example they make the hypothesis that when 10.000 years ago Sahara became a desert, perhaps the Berbers migrated to Crete creating the Minoan civilization. In other words, instead of trying to find a way to survive they constructed ships, and went to Crete! Did not the authors really wonder about the probability that Cretans, rulers of the high seas at the time, traveled the opposite way, as many ancient sources refer? Moreover, the Saharas succulent sojourn faced an abrupt end about 5.500 years ago.(see Sara Simpson, Scientific American Oct.1999, p.19) and naturally not 10.000 ago when the last fluvial climatic conditions (cataclysm) occurred.
However, this hematological work may be considered as just a hoax and not as related to analogous to Cyprus situations. It is only sad, in the verge of the 3rd millennium, to see scientific journals publishing uncritically such essays.
THE PELOPONNESIAN POPULATION (1977/
Th. Pitsios conducted the anthropological research regarding the Peloponnesian population, under the guidance of Dr A. Poulianos, preliminary announced in "Anthropos" (1977, v. 4, p. 5-36). It has verified the basic conclusions of The origin of the Greeks, completing the anthropometrical data with 1582 individuals. In 1978 it was published in a separate edition of the Anthropological Association of Greece (book No 2), dedicated with love to his master.
The worldwide famous anthropologist of Moscow University Dr I. I. Roginski notes that in the southern part of the Balkans a wide border between the Dinaric and the front Asian anthropological types is located. Therefore, in this area some of the general problems of the classification of the European and front Asian populations may be ascertained. It must be also noted that by this work, the critique of the racist fabrications, regarding the genesis of the ancient Greek civilization, is found. (Note: meaning the racist theories supporting that contemporary Greeks are not descendents from the ancient and this is the reason why their civilization today falls short compared to that of the developed countries. On the contrary, besides the groundless comparison if for instance the traditions would be taken into account the scientific verification regarding the biological continuity of Greeks once more proves that the socio-historical and geographical conditions are the main factors ruling the peoples cultural level.).
The director of the Anthropological department of the Academy Ethnographic Institute in Moscow, Dr M. G. Levin added: ...It may seem paradox that many European peoples have been studied less than the peoples from Australia, Melanesia and other remote countries, Greece being one of the lesser examined ...A. N. Poulianos work completes this missing knowledge. The writer is fully aware of the methodology of the anthropological researches, has strictly kept all the necessary terms and paid suitable attention. The director of the Anthropological Institute and Moscow Anthropological Museum Dr B. P. Yiakimov stated: " My own view is that Mr A. N. Poulianos work represents the most perfect recapitulation regarding the Anthropology of Greeks."
From the other side of Atlantic, in USA, the director of the Smithsonian Institute, G.L. Angel, in a book review of The origins of the Greeks at the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (No 22, v. 5, 1964, p. 343) writes: Aris Poulianos correctly verifies that there is a full genetic continuity from ancient to contemporary times.
In the newspaper "NEA" of 25-1-1962, it is mentioned that: The scientific study of A. N. Poulianos refutes the dogmatic theory of the Greek hater, German historian Fallmerayer, who lived from 1790 to 1861, the time of the Greek fight for independence. Him (Fallmerayer) altogether dogmatically, that is without prior anthropological research - and therefore self-evidently anti-scientifically - tried to support the theory that Greeks are mainly Slavs. The researcher (A. Poulianos) ends by mentioning that the anthropological study, with the necessary historical and linguistic data, is necessary for the solution of ethnogenetic problems.
The present is the reflection of the past and in this lays its historical value. If the past helps us understand the present, the present helps us meditate on the future.
I always wonder why some people are so negative in understanding basic science and replace it with basic propaganda. I have come down to the result that these people are not able to understand science and find more easy to digest epty propaganda words....
But science , cannot be stopped and cannot be denied ....it is always present .....and it is absolute , up to the point when other scientific data are proven otherwise..
So , lets see what science and scientists have to say :
(The book is sold out, but soon will be republished).
Four successive editions, constantly enriched with new data, are edited concerning the Anthropological - Ethnogenetic study of the Greek population. The basis of this work is Aris N. Poulianos dissertation, which took place in the University of Moscow, under the supervision of the famous professor of Anthropology F. G. Debetz. The research was based on the study of 70 human characteristics (p. ex. body height, width of face, skin colour, shape of eyes etc.) of about 3000 Greek emigrants (after 1949 civil war) in the f. Soviet Union from different Hellenic areas. The statistical elaboration of these characteristics in combination with their geographical distribution demonstrated mathematically (because of their low dispersion) the incessant biological continuity of the Greeks all through the historic and prehistoric epochs, which refer at least to the Mesolithic and Upper Palaeolithic periods (15.000-30.000 years). This historical continuity is also proved by the comparison of measurements of the contemporary inhabitants with those of the ancient skulls of Greece, which statistically show no differences. Despite the occasional influences and limited migrations of populations, the anthropological research has shown that the population of Greece is basically native and that the contemporary Greeks are descendants of the ancient peoples who resided in the Greek peninsula. The same study indicated that the Albanian-speaking, Slav-speaking (Monte Negro included) as well as Valaches (Vlachi) of the greater Macedonian region are in their majority also autochthonous and therefore the influences from abroad mainly concerns the adoption of the chronologically younger languages, which are in use today.
The interest of the Press concerning the "Origin of the Greeks" is indicatively quoted in the following publications:
Avgi, 6-1-1962: Over 150 scientists of the University and the Academy of Moscow have fully agreed with the scientific views of Mr. Aris. Poulianos, underlining the seriousness of the research, and without sparing their expressions, they spoke with praising words about him. Dr S. A. Tocarev, professor of ethnography in the University of Moscow and head of the Department of Ethnography regarding the peoples of Europe at the Institute of Ethnography of the Moscow Academy of Sciences, stated the following:
Aris Poulianos work presents an exceptional interest for the ethnographic science. The huge anthropological material of Greeks, which is concentrated and statistically elaborated, introduces for the first time new scientific sources for the study of a problem of basic importance, as is the problem of the origin of the Greek people. So far, concerning same issue it was generally accepted in science that contemporary Greeks historically have very few common elements with the ancient Greeks founders of the ancient civilization, and that contemporary Greeks in their greatest part represent descendants of Slavs, Albanians and other peoples who migrated in Greece and blended with the Greeks of the Byzantine era. Contrary, the writer of the present study, convincingly and based on analogous material, showed that whatever the influence of Slavs and other peoples who came in contact with the Greeks was, the people of modern Greece is basically descendant of the ancient population of the Balkans and the Aegean islands.
I was wondering, since Greeks call there land Hellas, why is it everyone else calls it Greece? Where did that come from?
Dear sir
This is what some of Macedonian historical view on the matter of your question
why .May you'll agree ,may not ,but still it's nice stuff for at least reading only
regards
From the little book of BIG Greek lies>>
> >
BIG Greek Lie # 1>>
> >
Modern Greeks are direct descendents of the Ancient Greeks>>
> >
(The greatest victims of Greek lies are the Greeks themselves)>>
> >
By Risto Stefov
> >
[NOTE: Our apologies to the Greek people if they find these articles offensive. Our objective here is NOT to create tension between the Macedonian and Greek people but rather to highlight the problem that exists within the lace>lacename>Greeklacename>lacetype>Statelacetype>lace> and its institutions. As long as the lace>lacename>Greeklacename>lacetype>Statelacetype>lace> denies our existence as Macedonians with rights and privileges, we will continue to publish these types of articles.] >>
> >
How can a region in the Balkans where modern Greece is located today, which has been open to a multitude of invasions, conquests and settlements, remain homogeneous and untouched for two thousand seven hundred years?>>
> >
Ironically, as the Greeks claim, how can modern lace>Macedonialace>, a region neighbouring modern lace>Greecelace> be so heterogeneous that it has completely lost its original identity? >>
> >
These are questions that every Greek should be asking!>>
> >
Ever since Philip II of lace>Macedonialace> conquered the ancient City States at the conclusion of the battle of lace>Chaeronealace> in 338 BC, the region south of lace>Olympuslace> has been without borders and open to all kinds of invasions and barbarian settlements.>>
> >
THE BIG GREEK LIE: Modern Greeks are direct descendents of the ancient Greeks>>
> >
There were no Ancient Greeks since the word Greek was not coined until after the Roman conquests, approximately 600 years after the establishment of the lace>lacetype>Citylacetype>lacetype>Stateslacetype>lace> and approximately 150 years after they were conquered by the Macedonians.>>
> >
It is also well known that the ancient City States were never united politically and never established themselves as a single state.In fact they existed politically independent from one another and fought each other for economic dominance of the region.>>
> >
The name lace>Greecelace> was imposed on the lace>lacename>modern Greeklacename>lacetype>Kingdomlacetype>lace> by the Great Powers Britain, lace>Francelace> and lace>Russialace>. Modern Greeks call themselves Hellenes (Ellines) and their state lace>Hellaslace> (Ellas).>>
> >
By using the name Greek to refer to both the ancient and modern people, the Greek state falsely implies descent for the modern Greeks from the ancients. >>
> >
By using the name lace>Greecelace> to refer to both the ancient and modern states, the lace>lacename>Greeklacename>lacetype>Statelacetype>lace> is falsely implying;>>
> >
(1) continuity between the ancient lace>lacetype>Citylacetype>lacetype>Stateslacetype>lace> and modern lace>Greecelace>, and >>
> >
(2) that there was some sort of political unity between the ancient City States themselves where one did not exist.. >>
> >
In reality the words lace>Greecelace> and Greek were popularized by modern 19th century writers. There are no ancient maps or references with the words lace>Greecelace>.>>
> >
The Romans may have made some references to the ancient people living in tate>lace>Sicilylace>tate> as Grecos but they referred to the region south of lace>Olympuslace> as Achaia.>>
> >
During the Ottoman era the people living south of lace>Olympuslace> called themselves Romeos (Romans).>>
> >
lace>Greecelace> is a newly created state which never existed before the 19th century. The lace>lacetype>Kingdomlacetype> of lacename>Greecelacename>lace>, occupying the region of Morea, present day lace>Peloponnesuslace>, was created for the first time in 1829. Between 1829 and 1912 the Greeks enlarged their territory to present day lace>Greecelace>, by conquering lace>Epiruslace>, lace>Thessalylace> and 51% of lace>Macedonialace>.>>
> >
At its inception lace>Greecelace> stated out with a small population of less than one million people, most of whom were Albanians, Slavs and Vlahs with a small minority of other ethnicities. By the time lace>Greecelace> conquered lace>Epiruslace> and lace>Thessalylace>, its population grew to three times its original size. In 1907 it registered a population of 2,600,000.After it conquered lace>Macedonialace> and exchanged populations with lace>Turkeylace>, its population tripled. In 1928 lace>Greecelace> registered 6,200,000 people. 1,100,000 of them were Christians, refugees from lace>Asia Minorlace>.>>
> >
After the Treaty of Lausanne in July 1923, and after the population exchanges with lace>Turkeylace>, lace>Greecelace> declared itself homogenous consisting of 100% pure Greeks with a very small Muslim but ethnically Greek population.>>
> >
It is estimated that after lace>Macedonialace> was conquered, occupied and had some of its population evicted, more than one million Macedonians still remained and were included among the Greeks. >>
> >
According to lace>Greecelace> however, there were no non-Greeks left in lace>Macedonialace> after its population exchanges. Also, according to lace>Greecelace>, the ancient Macedonians were extinct, killed off by the Slavs around the 6th century AD during the so-called Slav invasions. >>
> >
So the question that begs to be asked here is, What nationality were these million or so people who remained in lace>Macedonialace> and became part of lace>Greecelace>?Many Greeks would argue that they were Bulgarians!>>
> >
If that were the case, then how can the modern Greeks claim purity and homogeneity if at least 16% of its population in 1928 was non-Greek? What about its Vlah, Slav, Albanian and Turkish elements? Clearly they are not Greeks, let alone being direct descendents of the ancient Greeks?>>
> >
Even this small argument shows that there is something fishy about these Greek claims.>>
> >
For over a century and a half lace>lacename>Greeklacename>lacetype>Statelacetype>lace> institutions, organizations and individuals have been making unproven and unfounded allegations that the modern Greeks are direct descendents of the ancients. To this day they have shown no evidence to prove their claims. In fact the opposite is true. There is ample evidence that proves that this particular modern Greek claim is an outright BIG Greek lie.>>
> >
This exact issue was tackled by Historian John Shea in chapter 4 of The Great Ethnic Mix of Greece, pages 77 to 96, in his book lace>Macedonialace> and lace>Greecelace>, The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation.Among other things, John Shea proves that even the ancient people were not homogeneous. >>
> >
It has been estimated that in classical times the number of slaves in lace>Atticalace> was roughly equal to the number of free inhabitants, or around 100,000. In lace>Spartalace> there was an even greater proportion of slaves, and most of them, the helots, were Messenians. While the slaves of lace>Athenslace> were a wide racial mix and therefore less likely to unite on the basis of a common language, these Messenian helots of lace>Spartalace> all spoke Greek, and had a kind of group self-consciousness. Thus they presented special problems of security for their Spartan masters, whose numbers were constantly on the decline. Changes in the ethnic composition of Greek city-states are illustrated by the comments about the case of Piso. Piso, who had been the recipient of an unhelpful decision by a vote of the Athenian city assembly, made a violent speech in which he said that the latter-day Athenians had no right to identify themselves with the great Athenians of the days of Pericles, Demosthenes, Aeschylus, and Plato. The ancient Athenians had been extirpated by repeated wars and massacres and these were mere mongrels, degenerates, and the descendants of slaves. He said that any Roman who flattered them as if they were the legitimate heirs of those ancient heroes was lowering the dignity of the Roman name.Such historical ideas make it clear that even two thousand years ago the notion of ethnic purity amongst the Greeks was difficult to sustain. The ethnic mix continued over the next two thousand years. As Nicol has observed, The ancient Greeks were, after all, of very mixed ancestry; and there can be no doubt that the Byzantine Greeks, both before and after the Slav occupation, were even more heterogenous. (Pages 83 and 84, John Shea, lace>Macedonialace> and lace>Greecelace>, The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation)>>
> >
And there you have it!>>
> >
THE TRUTH: The modern Greeks are not only NOT direct descendents of the ancients, but their Greekness is a myth, a modern 19th century creation.>>
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
If anyone would like to read more that a tittle of previous post could find out what are you pointing as well :
-There were no Ancient Greeks since the word Greek was not coined until after the Roman conquests, approximately 600 years after the establishment of the City States and approximately 150 years after they were conquered by the Macedonians.
-The name Greece was imposed on the modern Greek Kingdom by the Great Powers Britain, France and Russia.
-By using the name Greek to refer to both the ancient and modern people, the Greek state falsely implies descent for the modern Greeks from the ancients.
-By using the name Greece to refer to both the ancient and modern states, the Greek State is falsely implying;
(1) continuity between the ancient City States and modern Greece, and
(2) that there was some sort of political unity between the ancient City States themselves where one did not exist.. >>
-In reality the words Greece and Greek were popularized by modern 19th century writers. There are no ancient maps or references with the words Greece. >>
-The Romans may have made some references to the ancient people living in Sicily as Grecos but they referred to the region south of Olympus as Achaia.
During the Ottoman era the people living south of Olympus called themselves Romeos (Romans). >>
-Greece is a newly created state which never existed before the 19th century. The Kingdom of Greece, occupying the region of Morea, present day Peloponnesus, was created for the first time in 1829.
SIr, WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THTA QUESTION?! He wanted to know about the NAME, not about if Greeks were related to the ancients. Prehaps he should post one back ABOUT the Bulgarian/serbian mixing which resulted in Present Day FYROMians
I was wondering, since Greeks call there land Hellas, why is it everyone else calls it Greece? Where did that come from?
Dear sir
This is what some of Macedonian historical view on the matter of your question
why .May you'll agree ,may not ,but still it's nice stuff for at least reading only
regards
From the little book of BIG Greek lies>>
> >
BIG Greek Lie # 1>>
> >
Modern Greeks are direct descendents of the Ancient Greeks>>
> >
(The greatest victims of Greek lies are the Greeks themselves)>>
> >
By Risto Stefov
> >
[NOTE: Our apologies to the Greek people if they find these articles offensive. Our objective here is NOT to create tension between the Macedonian and Greek people but rather to highlight the problem that exists within the lace>lacename>Greeklacename>lacetype>Statelacetype>lace> and its institutions. As long as the lace>lacename>Greeklacename>lacetype>Statelacetype>lace> denies our existence as Macedonians with rights and privileges, we will continue to publish these types of articles.] >>
> >
How can a region in the Balkans where modern Greece is located today, which has been open to a multitude of invasions, conquests and settlements, remain homogeneous and untouched for two thousand seven hundred years?>>
> >
Ironically, as the Greeks claim, how can modern lace>Macedonialace>, a region neighbouring modern lace>Greecelace> be so heterogeneous that it has completely lost its original identity? >>
> >
These are questions that every Greek should be asking!>>
> >
Ever since Philip II of lace>Macedonialace> conquered the ancient City States at the conclusion of the battle of lace>Chaeronealace> in 338 BC, the region south of lace>Olympuslace> has been without borders and open to all kinds of invasions and barbarian settlements.>>
> >
THE BIG GREEK LIE: Modern Greeks are direct descendents of the ancient Greeks>>
> >
There were no Ancient Greeks since the word Greek was not coined until after the Roman conquests, approximately 600 years after the establishment of the lace>lacetype>Citylacetype>lacetype>Stateslacetype>lace> and approximately 150 years after they were conquered by the Macedonians.>>
> >
It is also well known that the ancient City States were never united politically and never established themselves as a single state.In fact they existed politically independent from one another and fought each other for economic dominance of the region.>>
> >
The name lace>Greecelace> was imposed on the lace>lacename>modern Greeklacename>lacetype>Kingdomlacetype>lace> by the Great Powers Britain, lace>Francelace> and lace>Russialace>. Modern Greeks call themselves Hellenes (Ellines) and their state lace>Hellaslace> (Ellas).>>
> >
By using the name Greek to refer to both the ancient and modern people, the Greek state falsely implies descent for the modern Greeks from the ancients. >>
> >
By using the name lace>Greecelace> to refer to both the ancient and modern states, the lace>lacename>Greeklacename>lacetype>Statelacetype>lace> is falsely implying;>>
> >
(1) continuity between the ancient lace>lacetype>Citylacetype>lacetype>Stateslacetype>lace> and modern lace>Greecelace>, and >>
> >
(2) that there was some sort of political unity between the ancient City States themselves where one did not exist.. >>
> >
In reality the words lace>Greecelace> and Greek were popularized by modern 19th century writers. There are no ancient maps or references with the words lace>Greecelace>.>>
> >
The Romans may have made some references to the ancient people living in tate>lace>Sicilylace>tate> as Grecos but they referred to the region south of lace>Olympuslace> as Achaia.>>
> >
During the Ottoman era the people living south of lace>Olympuslace> called themselves Romeos (Romans).>>
> >
lace>Greecelace> is a newly created state which never existed before the 19th century. The lace>lacetype>Kingdomlacetype> of lacename>Greecelacename>lace>, occupying the region of Morea, present day lace>Peloponnesuslace>, was created for the first time in 1829. Between 1829 and 1912 the Greeks enlarged their territory to present day lace>Greecelace>, by conquering lace>Epiruslace>, lace>Thessalylace> and 51% of lace>Macedonialace>.>>
> >
At its inception lace>Greecelace> stated out with a small population of less than one million people, most of whom were Albanians, Slavs and Vlahs with a small minority of other ethnicities. By the time lace>Greecelace> conquered lace>Epiruslace> and lace>Thessalylace>, its population grew to three times its original size. In 1907 it registered a population of 2,600,000.After it conquered lace>Macedonialace> and exchanged populations with lace>Turkeylace>, its population tripled. In 1928 lace>Greecelace> registered 6,200,000 people. 1,100,000 of them were Christians, refugees from lace>Asia Minorlace>.>>
> >
After the Treaty of Lausanne in July 1923, and after the population exchanges with lace>Turkeylace>, lace>Greecelace> declared itself homogenous consisting of 100% pure Greeks with a very small Muslim but ethnically Greek population.>>
> >
It is estimated that after lace>Macedonialace> was conquered, occupied and had some of its population evicted, more than one million Macedonians still remained and were included among the Greeks. >>
> >
According to lace>Greecelace> however, there were no non-Greeks left in lace>Macedonialace> after its population exchanges. Also, according to lace>Greecelace>, the ancient Macedonians were extinct, killed off by the Slavs around the 6th century AD during the so-called Slav invasions. >>
> >
So the question that begs to be asked here is, What nationality were these million or so people who remained in lace>Macedonialace> and became part of lace>Greecelace>?Many Greeks would argue that they were Bulgarians!>>
> >
If that were the case, then how can the modern Greeks claim purity and homogeneity if at least 16% of its population in 1928 was non-Greek? What about its Vlah, Slav, Albanian and Turkish elements? Clearly they are not Greeks, let alone being direct descendents of the ancient Greeks?>>
> >
Even this small argument shows that there is something fishy about these Greek claims.>>
> >
For over a century and a half lace>lacename>Greeklacename>lacetype>Statelacetype>lace> institutions, organizations and individuals have been making unproven and unfounded allegations that the modern Greeks are direct descendents of the ancients. To this day they have shown no evidence to prove their claims. In fact the opposite is true. There is ample evidence that proves that this particular modern Greek claim is an outright BIG Greek lie.>>
> >
This exact issue was tackled by Historian John Shea in chapter 4 of The Great Ethnic Mix of Greece, pages 77 to 96, in his book lace>Macedonialace> and lace>Greecelace>, The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation.Among other things, John Shea proves that even the ancient people were not homogeneous. >>
> >
It has been estimated that in classical times the number of slaves in lace>Atticalace> was roughly equal to the number of free inhabitants, or around 100,000. In lace>Spartalace> there was an even greater proportion of slaves, and most of them, the helots, were Messenians. While the slaves of lace>Athenslace> were a wide racial mix and therefore less likely to unite on the basis of a common language, these Messenian helots of lace>Spartalace> all spoke Greek, and had a kind of group self-consciousness. Thus they presented special problems of security for their Spartan masters, whose numbers were constantly on the decline. Changes in the ethnic composition of Greek city-states are illustrated by the comments about the case of Piso. Piso, who had been the recipient of an unhelpful decision by a vote of the Athenian city assembly, made a violent speech in which he said that the latter-day Athenians had no right to identify themselves with the great Athenians of the days of Pericles, Demosthenes, Aeschylus, and Plato. The ancient Athenians had been extirpated by repeated wars and massacres and these were mere mongrels, degenerates, and the descendants of slaves. He said that any Roman who flattered them as if they were the legitimate heirs of those ancient heroes was lowering the dignity of the Roman name.Such historical ideas make it clear that even two thousand years ago the notion of ethnic purity amongst the Greeks was difficult to sustain. The ethnic mix continued over the next two thousand years. As Nicol has observed, The ancient Greeks were, after all, of very mixed ancestry; and there can be no doubt that the Byzantine Greeks, both before and after the Slav occupation, were even more heterogenous. (Pages 83 and 84, John Shea, lace>Macedonialace> and lace>Greecelace>, The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation)>>
> >
And there you have it!>>
> >
THE TRUTH: The modern Greeks are not only NOT direct descendents of the ancients, but their Greekness is a myth, a modern 19th century creation.>>
Loke, Attila, the grete conqueror,
Deyde in his sleep, with shame and dishonour,
Bleedinge ay at the nose in dronkenesse,
A captayin shoulde live in sobrenesse
Not
really familiar to Hebrew but I know that the Hellinic translation of
O.Testament Zechariyah chap. 9. 13 mentions the sons of Hellas but
while searching for it online, I found that the english translated text
uses the name "Javan".
Don't know what to make of it.
Aristotle and Apollodorus wrote about Graeci, who were the Selle or Helle a Hellinic tribe of Epirus.
In time I will have to check out these sources. I know the Greeks were mentioned in the Old Testement but were they called Hellenes?
I wonder what the ancient Hebrews called them?????
The term was used in order to prove that no matter what the language of Aromans is, they are autochthonous people of Greece and they don't differ at all from the people who have preserved Greek as their mother tongue. After all, it was cable guy who falsely mentioned that Greeks of Vlach origin forget their grandfathers (he also got poetic ). He motivated me to remind him that not only we are proud to be Aromans, but that our pure Hellenic origin makes even prouder as well.
I wouldn't actually use the "term" suspicius. I just find it
interesting that you find more pride in declaring your Aromanian origin
than your Hellinic. I might be wrong but you seem to separate these
people when they are one and the same. As I said, I might be wrong!! but the "neighboring Greek speaking people" term you
used, kinda hit me, other than that I have no objection to what you've
posted.
(Prwta kai panw ap'ola Ellhnas, meta Blaxos, Maniaths........)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: Why not Hellas?
we are good at getting stuff right sometimes..
). He motivated me to remind him that not only we are proud to be Aromans, but that our pure Hellenic origin makes even prouder as well.
