QuoteReplyTopic: Were the Greeks indigenous? Posted: 05-Oct-2005 at 04:45
C dating of artifacts is used, food residue on pottery, any organic
wastes and such. Sometimes the pottery iself can be dated by looking
for, well impuruties basicly, that become entraped in the pottery when
its made. Even the location of the clay used can be traced.
Fossil layers are more for counting millions of years.
Catal Hoyuk is in Turkey, and there are similar sites in that area
(including Iran). There are certainly older sites, but they are
significantly smaller, basicly homesteads.
I said that because you give no proof of your fancy theories. I meant to be cutting, not exactly insulting.
Cutting? Why, are we having an intimacy here and you consider yourself oblidged to be cutting in your remarks about me?
I meant to lower down your fantasies. Do you consider it insulting? Your business. I just meant to say: I don't swallow that.
According
to all sources the minimal population for still ill-excavated Los
Millares was of 1000 people, but I'm positive it had many more. (http://usuarios.lycos.es/losmillares/ - in Spanish).
Don't
dig Spanish, but I take your word on it... so, the several thousands
were in reality 1.000? A village, perhaps? And... what do you mean
"you" are positive it had more? What are you, some sorts of
archeologist with highly esteemed credentials? It's not about your estimations here, is it?
This
is Los Millares (as far as we know). How many towns of 1000 people
build such defenses? I don't think the city had only 1000 people.
Anyhow, while 10,000 people is now a large village in Medieval times it
accounted for a large city: Pisa, Siena, Zaragoza, Hamburg or Lyon had
10-25,000 people in the Medieval ages. Nothing of the like can be
expected for Chalcolithic times. So if it had 5,000 people as I
estimated considering a pretty dense housing (as should be expected
from such type of city) and 5 people per house (and not considering the
likely suburbs), then it was a giant city for its time.
I've
never said that such city was older than others. I actually give a
quite precise and commonly accepted as prudent date for the start of
it: 2600 BCE. This date is also valid for other early Iberian sites
like Zambujal (VNSP).
I had seen a "2.800 BC" as starting date... are there varied estimations?
You
know that diferent sources sometimes use diferent datations (maybe
older sources). But the modernly consensual date is 2600 BCE, I'm
pretty sure. There's also a pre-Millares period dating maybe from 3000
BCE.
That some of these cities could be linked to the legends of
atlantis and Erythia has nothing to do with their antiquity as it is
obvious that 9,000 years before Plato there was no city at all in the
whole planet (there was no even agriculture!). So the dates given in
Plato's narration must be wrong.
So,
let's recap this: You are not taking literaly the "9.000 year" mark,
but you are taking literaly they "beyond the pillars of Herakles"?
Picky, ain't we? And, is Andalucia "beyond the pillars of Herakles"?
I
don't think that Los Millares was Atlantis. I think it was Zambujal, a
smaller but more adequate city of west-central Portugal. It fits well
with most of the description. I'll open another topic for this debate
if that's what you want but I've already touched it in a minor topic: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5788& ; ;PN=1.
Another
posibility would be that was later and yet to be unearthed Tartessos.
Both would lie beyond the pillars of Herakles. But Zambujal or rather
the culture of Vila Nova de Sao Pedro should be in better position to
claim relatve control of Atlantic routes and has other geographical
features that fit well with Plato's description. Besides the apparent
conflict with hellenized El Argar can explain the presence of Mycenenan or Minoan Greeks in Iberia at the time.
I know. I was just using it to prove that not every single culture has memory of a natural cataclysm,
a commonly accepted false notion. Many peoples do but not ALL. And the
cataclysm types differ (floods in flood prone areas, drought in drought
prone areas, etc.)
You [i[know? Yet you speak adamantly about "only christian myths"? You confuse me . Also, I never said ALL
people have such traditions, I specifically mentioned people from
around the globe having such traditions. What excactly did you fail to
comprehend with?
Right. I misinterpreted your sentence of:
Cultures from all over the world have a tradition of a cataclysm...
... as saying that all cultures had those traditions. My bad... maybe. Which was your intention? It sounded like: as everybody says that, it must be that a worldwide cataclysm happened...
That's my point that Greeks of classic times considered the Pelasgians of the same race not a barbarian tribe.
Some historians didn't consider the Acheans and Ionians, Greeks before the decipherment of the Linear B and they named Greeks only the Dorians.
Edited by dorian
"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
That's my point that Greeks of classic times considered the Pelasgians of the same race not a barbarian tribe.
Some historians didn't consider the Acheans and Ionians, Greeks before the decipherment of the Linear B and they named Greeks only the Dorians.
Let me make it clear. Aeshyllus and Dionysius of Hallicarnasus considered Pelasgians as Greeks. First they resided in Thessalia and Hepirus thus why Thessalia was named also as Pelasgiotis, just like Greece was called Pelasgia. Note that another name of Thessaly is Argos Pelasgikon. The island of Delos was also called Asteria and Pelasgia.
Strabo wrote that Dorians and Aeolians were of Pelasgian stock. Herodotus makes no distinction between Aeolians and Dorians but underlines that Aeolians are Pelasgians.
Dorians in general were considered to be Pelasgians and plus they were saying so by themselves.
Ionians used to reside to Peloponissos, where its known as Achaia and before the arrival of Danaos and Ksouthos they were called Pelasgians Aigialeis. They were renamed as Ionians from Ion, son of Ksouthos.
The Atheneans while the area known today as Modern Greece was under Pelasgians, they were Pelasgians called Kranaoi, and during the reign of Kekrops they were know as Kekropidae. Later during Erehtheus they were named Atheneans.
I will continue later about Pelasgians when i find some more free time.
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.
The former civilizations were indigenous indeed,but not realy
greek. The ancient greek language we learn in our schools is not the
one of the Minoan and Micenean civilizations,but of the latter greek
tribes.
We can say however that there is a great connection between the 2
mentioned ethnic groups,as there are many common customs,such as the
burial proccess,the weapons and the religion,but we cant say that the
populations before the coming of the Dorians in 1100 B.C. were
"greek".We know them as aegean civilizations.
Well, there is this little issue called evolution, of course Minoan and
Mycenean Hellinic aren't exactly the same as later Attik but the
connection or should I say evolution is more than simply obvious.. Even
today, "modern" Hellinic can't be considered exactly the same as
ancient, yet the common use of words, the grammar...etc, prove that
modern is nothing more than the evolved form of ancient, which in it's
turn was the evolved form of Linear B'.. How can we not consider them
Hellinic speakers when we find Linear B' words in our language tody??
What about the simple fact that we find traces of the Herakideis (not the "Dorians") even before their alleged invasion???
See here:
The Lion Gate of Mycenae (clearly a "Dorian" style column)
Just for the comparison:
How do you get a column style that allegedly is introduced some 2-300yrs later by some imaginative invaders??
Obvious answer: Absolutely NO invasion they just returned.
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.
How do you get a column style that allegedly is introduced some 2-300yrs later by some imaginative invaders??
Obvious answer: Absolutely NO invasion they just returned.
Or rather, they adopted what they found in the invaded lands, it's more
common. Why wouldn't they adopt traits of the Mycenean and Achaean
cultures when they were clearly more advanced in so many aspects? The
Dorian column proves nothing, sorry.
Or rather, they adopted what they found in the invaded lands, it's more
common. Why wouldn't they adopt traits of the Mycenean and Achaean
cultures when they were clearly more advanced in so many aspects? The
Dorian column proves nothing, sorry.
You have a huge problem in understanding the simplest of issues and I honestly wonder why since you seem quite intelligent..
You're stuck on two or three notions (the so called "invasion", Linear
A' and this first heard of Atlantis theory) that you have never
presented no kind of proof in their support.
As we cleared it in a previous topic there was NO invasion, when you
felt that my explanation lacked some proof, you went around to ask
'akritas' who clearly gave the same responce. Now you come for a third
round of discussion.
As I've said the objection to the use of the term invasion is simple. The definition of the word is:
"Invasion is a military action consisting of troops entering a foreign land"
The land was by no means foreign to the Heraklides, so invasion is
obviously the wrong term to be used...we are not talking about one of
the other minor tribes trying to invade Peloponessos but the very people that
claimed to be autochthons.
So either present PROOF that the Heraklides, were foreign to Hellas or
the Peloponnesos in general or stop using a totally inaccurate term...
it is so simple..
As for the column, is makes loads of difference and you should have seen it.
'Intermixing' in building styles seen in the use of a 'Dorian' column
in a clearly Mycenean building some 2-300 yrs before the alleged
invasion ever has taken place. Obviously prooves that the Dorians
weren't as foreign as some would like them to be to these lands. This
little column, actually works as proof of their connections and
probable influence as seen via the myths and traditions..
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.
You use the term "return", Phallanx, meaning that Dorians had to get
out from Peloponesus/Southern Greece and then returned (like in the
Herklides' legend).
On the use of the term invasion, do you think we can use it properly when Prussia invades Hannover or when Venice invades Ravenna? Or should we better use return, because obviously they are all German or Italian?
It's obvious that what constitutes "a foreign land" is not defined by
nationality=ethnicity but by socio-political organization, even if we
ignore the cultural/ethnical diferences between Achaeans and Dorians,
because as you know well no nation is 100% homogenous and can easily be
split into smaller nationalities/ethnicities.
And the column proves nothing: Goths also used Roman architectural
techniques. What does it mean that Romans were German or that Goths
were Latin?
Hmm, well the difference is we are talking about the former population
of the area and not simply another 'tribe' of Hellas in general. It's
not the same as comparing Athens invading Limnos. That I can agree is
an invasion, but in the case of the Heraklides we are talking about an
attempt of the former population that was driven out, to regain power..
The Gaul Roman architecture isn't exactly the same... since we know
that the style in question was beyond doubt adopted from the Romans,
while in this case, we see an allegedly unknown 'style' existing in an
area it shouldn't which support their previous inhabitance of the area
or the connection if you prefer..
Edited by Phallanx
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.
Hmm, well the difference is we are talking about the former population
of the area and not simply another 'tribe' of Hellas in general. It's
not the same as comparing Athens invading Limnos. That I can agree is
an invasion, but in the case of the Heraklides we are talking about an
attempt of the former population that was driven out, to regain power..
Well, that's what the legend says but we don't how much true it is.
I've read in this forum Greek people saying authoritatively that
Dorians weren't the Heraklides but their allies. Also, I've always
thought that Herakles was kind of a mercenary, someone without a clear
homeland that worked for the king of Mycenae (retold as Argos). If you
follow this line of thought, the expulsion wasn't a expulsion from
their homeland but a exile of a group of mercenaries who never were
completely at home in the Peloponesos (else they may have found easier
to return, I believe).
The Gaul Roman architecture isn't exactly the same... since we know
that the style in question was beyond doubt adopted from the Romans,
while in this case, we see an allegedly unknown 'style' existing in an
area it shouldn't which support their previous inhabitance of the area
or the connection if you prefer..
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here but it's clear that Dorians didn't reproduce the tholoi, Mycenean circular tombs, pithoi burials,
cyclopean walls or the gate of the lions, they only preserved (or so it
seems) the sober structure of the Dorian column. Goths preserved much
more of Roman architecture, I think.
Well there seems to be a problem here and I'm sure it's not my posts,
since I do use quite easy-to-read english and by no means is it so
bad....
I never said the Heraklides weren't Dorian stock, I said :
Originally posted by Posted: 23 September 2005 at 8:02pm
]
The Pamphyloi and the Dymanes, even though part of the Dorians were not
Heraklides, both Pamphylos and Dymas were the sons of Aegimios, not
Herakles and just played the role of the ally to the Heraklides
(both died in battle), while they did assist, they had absolutely no
rights on the throne..
Let's try to avoid future mix ups...
Now how you came to the conclusion today that the Heraklides were
"mercenaries" is beyond me since there is neither any existant text nor
a serious scholar that I know of, that will support anything
remotely close to this claim..
According to the legends, since that is in reality all we have to work
with, among the Heraklides was Tisamenos, who was a Pelopide or more
correctly an Atreid just like Menelaos and Aggamemnon (Iliad) were...
The Heraklides sons of Herakles according to all versions of the myth,
were driven out of Peloponnesos by Eurystheas right after their
father's (Herakles') death.
So in order to be driven out of somewhere, anywhere, it is simple logic
that you must be a resident... there is no point in mentioning driving
them out of Peloponnesos if they had always been residents of
Thessaly... While the majority of the Doric stock obviously was, the
Heraklides are a totally different case..
As I've mentioned before, beside the Doric column found in the Lion
Gate of Mycenea which is obviously proof of previous relations. We also
have finds of Dorian pottery BEFORE the Dorians allegedly ever invaded,
Iron weapons, associated with Dorians, that were already used by
Mycenaeans by 1250BC.
While there is an obvious difference between 'cutures', we can not but
accept the fact that there was no real 'gap' between the two 'cutures'
but a continuance or evolution if you'd like, as supported by the above
mentioned facts..
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.
So what are you talking about, Phallanx: the Dorian invasion or the return of the Heraklides?
On a sidenote: resident is not the same as native. Why would the
Heraklides have any right to the throne of Mycenae if they were not
related with the ruling dynasty, I wonder. You know Greek mythology
better than I do, so, please tell me what's the exact claim of the
Heraklides and where is Herakles supposed to have been born (his
mythical nationality).
In any case, you will agree that whatever the "rights" of the Heraklean
family, it gives no "rights" to the Dorians. It's like saying that,
because some royal Goths helped Muslims to invade Spain, theirs wasn't
an invasion but "a return". Maybe the Goths returned but it were the Muslims who invaded, and that's the important ethno-historical fact. Same in the case of Dorians.
Roman Tuscany wasn't anymore Etruscan Tuscany, yet the Romans used many
Etruscan techniques and cultural elements, obviously. There's evolution
between the two cultures, but there's also a gap, a gap that is largely
defined by the Roman invasion. Does this apply also to the Dorian
invasion as well? I think it does apply.
In other cases, like Cisalpine Gaul, we see alien invaders (Celts)
culturally assimilated by Italic culture up to the point that they are
hardly identifiable as Celts anymore if we only follow the
archaeological indications. Does this mean that Celts weren't invaders
in Northern Italy? No, it doesn't.
If you don't know the already mention reason why Herakles and thus his
decendants had rights on the throne, then I'm starting to believe we
are just arguing for the sake of argument...
Not one of your above examples can be related to this discussion simply
because you mention people that aren't even 'kin' or remotely related..
Unless we are going to compare the Goths and Muslims to the Dorians and
Achaioi..which is totally unacceptable.. but anyway, that isn't the
point...
Of course the Dorians had no rights to make claims on the throne, which
is what I have mentioned
before (see above quote) the other Dorians, were simply allies of
the (of Doric stock) Heraklides and according to some sources
rulled by them...
I've already mentioned in our previous discusion the plot of the myth.
Since Alcmene (mother of Herakles) was the the only daughter (among ten sons) of Electryon,
son of Perseus founder of Mycenae, thus Herakles being her son, had
every right to make claims, a right that passed on to his decendants..
Why do we have to go in circles when the whole issue is so simple...
The problem here, (well at least the way I see it), is that you are
desparate to support some non-existant invasion and thus link it to the
conveniently constructed IE theory of invasions as previously seen in
our discussions pertaining Myceneans (that came from nowhere), Sesklo
(another previously non-existant cuture that was probably Kurgan) ,
Dimini (that came from who knows where), Sea People (the Urnfield
invadeders), Dorians (also linked to the Urnfield invadeders)
....etc.....
By the way, I am still waiting for you to support your 'mercenary' theory...
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.
Not one of your above examples can be related to this discussion simply
because you mention people that aren't even 'kin' or remotely related..
Unless we are going to compare the Goths and Muslims to the Dorians and
Achaioi..which is totally unacceptable.. but anyway, that isn't the
point...
Obviously they are not comparable, but in the opposite direction:
Romans had less to do with Etruscans than Dorians with Greeks, yet,
Romans took much of the Etruscan culture. Same with Goths and Romans. Why wouldn't Dorians be able
to take part of the Achaean culture, much more if they are related by
language and vecinity prior to the invasion?
And on the Heraklide genealogy, I really didn't know: never thought
that mythical genealogies were important. But, anyhow, that's
secondary: as Heraklides weren't Dorians, it's trivial which is their
genalogy. It changes nothing in the fact that Dorians invaded southern
Greece.
See what I mean: I'm not any devote of mythology and, while I have some
idea of who was Herakles and what he did, I never worried about his
genealogy (anyhow those mythical genealogies are too often modified to
make them fit the pretentions of each ruler). Who was his father, btw?
I didn't even know if the hereditary right applied in ancient Greece or
kings were elected or whatever. I really don't usually give much
importance to mythology. I just knew that Herakles was a military
leader, rather limited intelectually but strong and brave, who served
the King of Argos (most likely Mycenae in reality) until his death (via
treason if I don't recall badly).
And anyhow, if your mythology is so good and concise why there are no
references to anything prior the Mycenean age? Only vague references to
the existence of other gods (Cronos, Uranos, Gaia). How do you explain
those changes of gods if it didn't happen via invasion? Yes, I know
that mythically they are all son of each other but that sounds more
like a legitimation "a posteriori": a forced adoption of the new gods.
Unlike Zeus and the Olympians, who are clearly alike to other IE
mythologies, the Titans don't seem much IE (in fact Cronos is
assimilated to Phoenician gods like Baal Hammon). Gaia, Uranos and the
primitive mythological criatures don't seem either like anything IE
that I have ever read about. All the pre-Olympic gods seem too cthonic
to be IE/steppary.
And please, I have never ever said that Sesklo is Kurgan.
why dont u involve yourself with the "great" history and achievements of your own people ;;
If I recall Maju is Basque and comes from Spain, both of which have a history they can be proud of, same as all the people in the world.
In the meanwhile, this is a forum where all people, regardless of nationality, are free to talk of all civilizations. So instead of badmouthing a member of this forum that has contributed a lot, with intelligent posts and civilized discussions, you take another approach and have him as an example, perhaps you'll learn even if you don't agree with him!
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
After this intermission ............back to the discussion..
The Heraklides, WERE Dorian stock, but ONLY they were the rightfull heirs to the throne, NOT all the Dorians, which is why we find ONLY the Herklides being driven out of Achaia and later, ONLY they being 'appointed' to the kingdoms..
On myths, as I've said, Aristotle and Euemerus among others, tell us
that "myths are history in disguise" and it has been proven in several
occasions, like in that of, Romus and Romulus, Oddyseus, Troy, the
Golden Fleece, colonization of Phoenicia by Cretans among other
Hellines, the Gelonoi (in Skythia)....etc
Beside the slight differences in Gods, which is nothing more than a
logical evolution, not that we haven't analyzed what their names
mean and thus what they represnet in previous discussions...anyway..
It is quite interesting (since you mentioned no memories prior to Mycenean age) to note that Hellinic mythology and thus memories, surpass the combined mythology of all other 'cultures/civilizations'.
As to the significance of cultural memories, you might find this article quite interesting (already presented in an older post)
Continuity in archaeology and folklore :
The processes of collective memory
reflect on themselves. The performance
of rituals, even the retelling of stories, are
not simply the �artefacts� of a society or
culture. The rituals and the stories also
shape the culture. The repetition of
rituals, the retelling of stories, and similar
performances are in themselves a
substantial part of the culture and
society.
A mythology and thus memories that has recorded, not one but four
different events of a deluge, (Ogugos, Deukalion, Dardanos and
Kekrops) compared to the majority that record one and Sumerian
that mentions two...
This becomes a bit more interesting when we note that beside Hellinic
scholars (that I will not mention to avoid any claims of them being
bias) during the 5th International Symposium in Thessaloniki, Apr.
2004..
The Russian Geologist Antrei Chepaliga (sp?) after his research claimed
to be able to prove that approx 10-15.000yrs ago, due to the melting of
ice, the Caspian Sea rose some 300m for a time span of some 100yrs
this ...... event obviously had a major influence on the Aegean.
After him, followed Vladimir Trifonov that presented his research that supported a different
deluge taking place approx. in the 6th millenium in Mesopotamia, again
this event had obvious influence on the Aegean and according to his
research, actually drove the population of Mesopotamia Westward..
We also know that the erruption of Santorini, which volcanic ash has
been located in Britain must have had a similar destructive influence
on the area and thus can also be considered as one of the four deluges.
The question is, when was the fourth???
Anyway, obviously having oral traditions and memories (since written is
from dificult to impossible ) that can reach that far back, beyond
Mycenean age. Once again show us that memories, in the form of myths
are continuously being proved to be quite real and slowly but steadily, presenting more than enough proof to reject various theories..
(imagine that I haven't even gotten into the Orphics and Hesiod yet)
Edited by Phallanx
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.
Phalanx, please excuse my intermission (again!). I just wanted to add that I enjoy the discussion that you and Maju are having on the subject, even if don't participate, simply because I feel that my knowledge on the subject is totally inefficient compared to you both (and others). One of these days, I'll study a bit more and then post my views on the matter, telling you which one has persuaded me.
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
Re, Yianni, the coment wasn't about your post... but hansel's how
should I call it... let's say reaction/outburst to Maju's objections..
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
The Heraklides, WERE Dorian stock, but ONLY they were the rightfull heirs to the throne, NOT all the Dorians,
which is why we find ONLY the Herklides being driven out of Achaia and
later, ONLY they being 'appointed' to the kingdoms..
Were they (the Heraklides) Achaeans (from Achaia) or Dorians (from the
north)? Or maybe they were mixed. You seem to have it all very clear
but I don't.
...
While mythology can hide a historical truth, what is true and what is
not must be discovered by other means and proven reasonably. You know:
my aristocratic Italian grandpa's family claims to descend from Hector
of Troy, nothing less. But I don't believe a word. It's been too common
among griots and heralds of
all cultures to adapt the old legends and particularly the genalogies
to the tastes of the ruling class, who were the ones that payed them
after all. We can't fall in being too benevolent when interpreting the
details of myths that go beyond any serious historical or
archaeological source does. I think it's better to be prudent and
separate the factual truth from the likely possibility and the mere
legend without ground.
You should better state Herakles is said to be son of X and Y and
therefore is (probably) related to this and that royal
house/clan/ethnicity... whatever, rather than yell at me for not
knowing the obscure details of the royal household of Mycenae, a city
that hasn't existed since 3000 years ago and what all we know about is
via mythology and archaeology. And I acknowledge that, at least on
Greek mythology, you know more than I do.
After all what we are discussing, I think, is wether the term invasion applies
properly to the Dorian invasion of Achaea and other parts of southern
Greece (Thebes, for instance). I say that Dorians were aliens to that
region (or at least mostly aliens) and therefore the term invasion is
properly used (not considering the likely disruption they caused); you
say that the term return is better because mythologically the Dorians
claimed their right to do it because they were helping the Heraklides
to regain the throne of Mycenae, on which they had some doubtful claim
via Herakles' mother. To me this sounds more a pretext or, more likely,
an "a posteriori" legitimation for the action but it doesn't actually
matter, because Dorians (not the Heraklides) weren't in any case native
from Achaea nor they had been expelled from it, what could justify your
use of the term return.
I really can't see the point on writing the return of the Dorians when the Dorians had never been living in Achaea before. It's just and plainly an invasion with, maybe, a dynastic pretext.
And believe me: the dynastic question is the less relevant one. It is
the sociopolitical question what matters. How do you think that native
Peloponesian helots thought of their Dorian Spartan masters, when they
still had conscience of what had happened: as hated invaders/opressors
or brothers from the north? Maybe they saw them as liberators...
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