Roman/Greek Ethnicy and Physical Traits

Originally posted by Mosquito Jomsviking Saga:     The Danish king, Svein Tjuguskeg, was married to Gunhild, a daughter of Burizleif, king of the Vinds..(..)...Burizleif, the king of the Vinds, complained to his relation Earl Sigvalde, that the agreement was broken which Sigvalde had made between King Svein and King Burizleif, by which Burizleif was to get in marriage Thyre, Harald's daughter, a sister of King Svein: but that marriage had not proceeded, for Thyre had given positive no to the proposal to marry her to an old and heathen king. "Now," said King Burizleif to Earl Sigvalde, "I must have the promise fulfilled." And he told Earl Sigvalde to go to Denmark, and bring him Thyre as his queen. Earl Sigvalde loses no time, but goes to King Svein of Denmark, explains to him the case; and brings it so far by his persuasion, that the king delivered his sister Thyre into his hands. With her went some female attendants, and her foster-father, by name Ozur Agason, a man of great power, and some other people. In the agreement between the king and the earl, it was settled that Thyre should have in property the possessions which Queen Gunhild had enjoyed in Vindland, besides other great properties as bride-gifts. Thyre wept sorely, and went very unwillingly. When the earl came to Vindland, Burizleif held his wedding with Queen Thyre, and received her in marriage; bus as long as she was among heathens she would neither eat nor drink with them, and this lasted for seven days...(...)...It happened one night that Queen Thyre and Ozur ran away in the dark, and into the woods, and, to be short in our story, came at last to Denmark. But here Thyre did not dare to remain, knowing that if her brother King Svein heard of her, he would send her back directly to Vindland. She went on, therefore, secretly to Norway, and never stayed her journey until she fell in with King Olaf, by whom she was kindly received."   And from the Gunhild (know also as Sigrid, original polish name Swietoslava) daughter of Polish ruler Burizleif and Danish king Sven Forkbeard was their son Canute the Great, who recived from his Polish cousin 300 fully armoured wariors for his conquest of England.

 

Originally posted by Kanas_Krumesis       It`ll be interest to me to explain what is the reason for this change of meaning. To me it is hard to find historical explanation. Byzantine empire never had enough strength to rule a long time over slavic states on the Balkan. On the contrary Bulgaria many times delivered heavy defeat to Byzantine army, and even in 917 D.C. bring empire to his knee after Battle of Acheloos.     To talk about Byzantine domination over another Medieval Slavic states like Kievian Rus, Poland, Bohemia... will be non-sence.  I read many Medieval Byzantine author. They absolutely rare used term "Sklavinoi" when they write about Bulgarians. Terms are mostly "Scythians", "Moesians", "Voulgaros"...

Firstly, byzantine Greeks called Slavs as "Sklavoi" or "Sthlavoi"-"Skavinoi"-"Sklavounoi" because the "sl" sound in the beginning of a word isn't used in any Greek word. So "sl" became either "sthl" or "skl".

I think these terms got the meaning of slave, because byzantines met Slavs as subjects of other tribes such as Avars(at first) and Bulgars and the Slavs that were under the byzantine authority were not equal citizens but mostly members of "Sklavinies". 

And Bulgaria was a Byzantine eparchia not for a short time...despite some bulgarian victories...

Originally posted by beorna There are different names for the Greeks, danaoi, achaioi and argeioi at the times of Homer, hellenes at the classical times, graikoi is a Roman used term for Greeks, a name of an epirotic ethnos (so Aristoteles). They were also called Ionioi from Asians.   In the case of homer we don't really know if all Greeks called themselves danaoi, achaioi or argeioi, because he is speaking of an ancient time, nearly 500 years before himself. the name hellenes for all greeks appeared for the first time in the beginning of the 6th century. The name was originally the name of an epirotic tribe. The dodonic cult of Zeus and the delphic oracle made the hellenic name famous among all greeks, so that they used it as a term for themselves. epirotes and makedonians, as well as Molosser were excluded from the hellenes-term. As I said above, Graikoi or better graeci is the Roman term for Greeks. It is the same with Ionioi. This term was used by persians and others because the Ionians were sitting close to them in Little asia. So it was probably never a term all greeks used for themselves.

Your paragraph needs some corrections...

-In Trojan war only Achaioi participated and thats why they are called Achaioi in Homeros. The other greek speaking groups of the north did not participate, and a sense of unity came later in 7-8th centuries when the Olympic games started to gain fame.

-Firstly, Molossoi were Epirotes, they're not different groups... Makedones and Epirotes, Aitoloi, Akarnanes and various other greek speaking tribes were more backward in relation with the city states of Peloponnesos and Attica, but were icluded in Hellenes. (the internet is full of sources...).

-The name "Graikoi" used by Greeks never had been favorite for Greeks, but in the period when the antipagan christian ideology dominated and the term "Hellen" went to mean pagan it was used by middle period byzantines to describe themselves and geneally their people ethnically(like Theodore the Studitis). The term was used by all European people like Italians, Franks, Vikings, Serbs, Bulgarians etc while in the East in order to describe the Empire and its people used derivations of "Ionian" like the important for the empire Armenians who called byzantine Greeks "Yoyn".

This term lost ground as the term "Hellen" regained its ethic meaning, since 9-10th century when paganism was just a memory.

Edited by Patrinos - 08-Jan-2010 at 04:47

Originally posted by Patrinos I think these terms got the meaning of slave, because byzantines met Slavs as subjects of other tribes such as Avars(at first) and Bulgars and the Slavs that were under the byzantine authority were not equal citizens but mostly members of "Sklavinies".  And Bulgaria was a Byzantine eparchia not for a short time...despite some bulgarian victories...

Edited by Kanas_Krumesis - 08-Jan-2010 at 10:07

Originally posted by Kanas_Krumesis Originally posted by Patrinos I think these terms got the meaning of slave, because byzantines met Slavs as subjects of other tribes such as Avars(at first) and Bulgars and the Slavs that were under the byzantine authority were not equal citizens but mostly members of "Sklavinies".  And Bulgaria was a Byzantine eparchia not for a short time...despite some bulgarian victories... Ha ha ha. Don`t be megaloman. Theodore Komnenos Doukas for years was Bulgarian bitch, and  Nikephoros I ever lost his head in atempt to conquer Bulgaria. One of the few roman/byzantine emperors killed in battle. His victor was Krumesis, one of the greatest our rulers. After that victory he siege Constantinople.

Megalomanis or not...Bulgaria always was shadowed by Polis and its Empire...

Don't hesitate to use the term "Greek", thats how the Bulgarians always called their southern neighbor people and state....

Edited by Patrinos - 08-Jan-2010 at 15:37

Shadowed or not Bulgaria existed many hundred of years, include after 1204 D.C. when "Polis" was ruled by crusaders and Byzantine empire didn`t exist.

 

Even then after something less from a millennium of existence the first capture of the Polis gave Hellenism a push that hadn't experienced for centuries and led to an pre-nationalistic "ethnos" very similar in the conception we have today, and the creation of four important for  Greek history states: the two Despotates,of Epiros and Mystras, and the Empires of Trapezous and Nicaia, that led to the liberation of Polis and its survival until 1453...while its "children" Mystras and Trapezous survived till 1460-61.

  PS.we all have understood the paranoia in that country.  

Edited by Patrinos - 09-Jan-2010 at 05:04

Originally posted by Partizani Hard to define ethnic traits. Especially in an environment that changes due to population shifts.

Originally posted by cavalry4ever Yes. Historical delusions about imaginary ancestors.

One thing always makes me curious. Why is it that heroes in British and American romantic novels always, invariably, have dark hair, on top of the obligatory tall, dark and handsome bit?

The ancient Greeks were predominatly Mediterranean and Alpine, just like there modern descendents. Just read the Races of Europe by the distinguished Anthropologist, Carleton Steven Coon, he states there is no racial difference between modern and ancient Greeks. There were lighter pigmented individuals, but they were the minority, just like they are today.

Taken from the exceptional good blog of dienekes pontikos.

on the physical appearence of the ancient Greeks

LITERARY EVIDENCE

It is sometimes mentioned that ancient literature provides evidence for the significant existence of
Nordics in ancient Hellas. It does nothing of the kind. There are numerous references to brunets in
ancient mythology and literature, e.g., the Muses, Poseidon, Alcmena, Theseus, Zeus, Dionysos and
Odysseus are described as possessing either dark hair or dark eyes. Hercules, the Greeks’ favorite hero
is described as dark (melanan), hook-nosed (grupon) by Dicaearchus (Clement of Alexandria,
“Protreptic to the Greeks” 2.30.7). Hercules was also proverbially melampugos (having a black behind)
as indicative of his bravery, as opposed to pugargos (having a white behind), a coward [29]. The Greek
poetess Sappho (an aristocrat from the isle of Lesbos in the 7th c. BC) reveals that both she and her
mother were dark (Fr. 98a, line 11). Philoktetes and Aias were also both brunet-skinned and blackhaired
(Malalas, Chronogr. 104, 3-8). We must also not neglect to mention the detailed analysis of
classicist Denys Page [26] who, in agreement with the ancient testimony of Callimachus (Fr. 299.1)
demonstrates that the epithet elikôpes, collectively used for the Homeric Achaeans, probably meant
“dark-eyed,” rather than “with rolling eyes” as it was erroneously thought. Eleanor Irwin, who wrote
the definitive work on color terms in Greek poetry [29] agrees with this opinion, and so does Noel
Robertson who summarizes [45] current opinion as follows: “it is clear that the meaning ‘black’ is
well-founded, whereas ‘rolling’ or ‘twisting’ rests on a misunderstanding of various compounds.”
Finally, some personages (e.g., Theseus and Dionysos) are portrayed in Greek literature sometimes as
blond (Euripides) and sometimes as brunet (Hesiod), indicating that there was not a uniform belief
about their pigmentation. The second most popular Greek hero, Theseus, founder of Athens was darkeyed
(Bacchylides 17.16-19).


A certain measure of naivete can excuse claims of the alleged blondeness of the ancient Greeks.
Sometimes, the common-sense explanation of literary descriptions is conveniently discounted, and a
generalization from sporadic references to blondes in ancient literature is performed without much
thought. In an oft-used example, Orestes’ hair is described as fair, in Sophocles’ Electra as a dramatic
device aiding Electra’s recognition of her brother from a lock of his hair on her father Agamemnon’s
tomb. Clearly, if Orestes was depicted as brunet, the common Greek color, it would be impossible for
Electra to identify him. Similarly, Demeter, the goddess of the corn is described as light-haired (xanthe)
and so is Apollo, the god of light and the sun. Poseidon, the sea god is dark-haired (kuanochaites), as is
Hades, god of the underworld, while Eos, the Dawn goddess is rosy-fingered (rhododaktylos).
There are all but four mortals in the Iliad who are described as xanthoi. From this scanty evidence, the
generalization “the Achaeans were blonde” is arrived by the Nordicists. Does the absence of
descriptions of brunets signify that there were no brunets in the southernmost extremity of Europe in
Mycenaean times? Clearly, such a thesis overlooks the common use of color terms as distinctive
attributes of their possessors.
It is more reasonable to think that Menelaos and Achilleus are described
as xanthoi, while hundreds of other heroes are not as indicative that these two possessed a trait which
was otherwise uncommon, i.e., light pigmentation of hair. The same can be said for light eyes as well,
and e.g., Athena’s light eyes caused the scorn of Hera and Aphrodite in a text by Hyginus who
presumably did not have such eyes (Hyginus, Fabulae, Marsyas).
We must also dispel the notion that "xanthos" always refers to yellow hair, or that "purros" refers to purely
red hair. For the former, we note that Aristophanes used xanthizein to describe roasting meat, which of
course does not turn yellow. Additionally, Strabo uses xanthotrichein and leukotrichein (making hair
xanthon and making hair “white”) indicating that xanthon was a darker shade than extremely fair hair.
George Cedrenus uses it to describe the eyes of the Virgin (xanthommaton); eyes are rarely yellow,
unless jaundiced, which seems unlikely in this case. In modern Greek it may be used to describe any
color short of black [22]. In ancient Greek, according to Barbara Fowler [28] was any color short of
black or dark brown, while Wace [22] believes that it may have been at most auburn. Color terms are
notoriously relative; xanthos may only be taken to mean the fair end of the Greek hair continuum, not
blond. This impression is enhanced by the descriptions of northern European hair as polios (gray,
usually of old people) or leukon (white) to be found in Greek literature (Diodorus Siculus, Adamantius
Judaeus).
As for purros it is noteworthy that the common Greek words for fiery red eruthros is not employed for
hair, while purros is given by Aelius Herodianus (Partitiones 115, 10) for the color of eyes. Human
eyes are never red, or so-called strawberry blond, but they are often of a brown tint mixed with red. It is
certain that at least in some cases, reddish brown is intended, while in others, as e.g., in describing
German hair, reddish blond may be appropriate, given the known pigmentation of Germans. It must
also be remembered that no ethnic taxon of man is recorded as being primarily red-headed. Therefore,
purros means having a red tinge, it does not mean redhead.
It would be worthwhile to quote here in full, the opinion of British anthropologist John Beddoe [34].
Beddoe studied thousands of Britons and continental Europeans, and comparing his designations with
that of other observers, came to realize the relativity of color terms:
Thus almost all French anthropologists say that the majority of persons in the north of
France are blond; whereas almost all Englishmen would say they were dark, each set of
observers setting up as a standard what they are accustomed to see around them when at
home. What is darkish brown to most Englishmen would be chestnut in the nomenclature of
most Parisians, and perhaps even blond in that of Auvergne or Provence; an ancient
Roman might probably have called it sufflavus or even flavus.