akritas
09-06-2007, 04:03 PM
The follow Borza claims are written in the known anti-macedonian book...In the Shadow of Olympus
The theory of the Dorian invasion (based on Hdt. 9.26, followed by Thuc. I.12) is largely an invention of nineteenth-century historography, and is otherwise unsupported by either archeological or linguistic evidence.
The theory of the invasion is not new. Is almost 2500 years old.
The story of a Dorian invasion appears first in Tyrtaeus, a 7th B.C. century poet, in the service of Sparta, who brings the Spartan Heracleids to Peloponnese from Erineon in the northern Doris; and the lost Epic of Aegimius, of about the same date, seems to have presupposed the same story.
Also in the 5th century Pindar ascribes to Aegimius the institutions of the Peloponnesian Dorians, and describes them as the Dorian folk of Hyilus and Aegimius, and as originating from Pindus (Pyth. V. 75: cf. Fr. ~).
After of this we have the historicians Herodotus and Thoukidedes. Their stories are known.
But I will stay in the latter. Thucydides agrees in regarding the Parnassian Doris as the mother-state of the Dorians (i. 507) and dates the invasion (as the writers of the 7th B.C.) eighty years after the Trojan War; this agrees approximately with the pedigree of the kings of Sparta, as given by Herodotus, and with that of Hecataeus of Miletus (considered as evidence for the foundation date of an lonian. refugee-colony). Thucydides also accepts the story of Heracleid leadership.
There was a Doric dialect of the Greek language, as well as a Doric column in architecture and a Dorian mode in music (see also guitar chord roots). The column was noted for its simplicity and strength, the music for its martial qualities.
The Doric dialect was spoken along the coast of the Pelloponese, in Crete and south west Asia Minor. In later periods other dialects predominated, most notably the Attic. The main characteristic of Doric was the preservation of indoeuropean /a/(α) where Attic had /e/(η).
There are plenty of ancient writing inscriptions.
The Dorians are invisible archeologically.
The Dorians are not invisible as about the static ancient evidence. We know very well the Doric Rhythm in the Statue.
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Arts/Temple/Doric.jpg
There are of course and others such as ancient written inscriptions.
There is no archeological record of the Dorian movements, and the mythic arguments are largely conjectural, based on folk traditions about the Dorian home originally having been in northwest Greece.
By the meaning archaeological record understand the writing record in the above quote.
The major archaeological record of the Dorian movements, were mythic arguments are largely conjectural, based on folk traditions about the Dorian home originally having been in northwest Greece. Major proofs are the discovers of Troy, Knossos, Muckeane and of course Pella.
So how assume Mr Borza that the mythic arguments or poets a are not based when according those we had found all this archaeological sites?
And of course we have the first historicians as about the written archaeological recording. Herodotus and Thucydides
The explanation for the connection between the Dorians and the Macedonians may be more ingenious than convincing, resting uncomfortably on myth and conjecture.
If anyone read the Andronicus Book as about the findings of the Pella you will read plenty of archaeological proofs as about the similarities of the Macedonians and the rest of the Dorians. And the book had written before the founding of the biggest ancient inscription. The Pella katadesmos.
You know very well that finding of them is the reason of the recognised ancient Macedonian Language us a Greek ancient language.
Cf. Ul. Wilcken (Alexandre le Grand, op. cit., p. 33) state .... "It seems more and more certain that the Macedonians were a Greek tribe related to the Dorians. However, as they stayed high up in the distant north, they could not participate in the progress of civilization of the Greek people that migrated southward...".
and Borza in Makedonika (pages 49-59) said....
First , the matter of the Hellenic origins of the Macedonians: Nicholas Hammond's general conclusion that the origin of the Macedonians lies in the pool of proto-Hellenic speakers who migrated out of the Pindus mountains during the Iron Age is acceptable.
Then he says that ancient Macedonians were hellenized.!:wacko:
Is he reliable as expert for the Macedonian history ?
The theory of the Dorian invasion (based on Hdt. 9.26, followed by Thuc. I.12) is largely an invention of nineteenth-century historography, and is otherwise unsupported by either archeological or linguistic evidence.
The theory of the invasion is not new. Is almost 2500 years old.
The story of a Dorian invasion appears first in Tyrtaeus, a 7th B.C. century poet, in the service of Sparta, who brings the Spartan Heracleids to Peloponnese from Erineon in the northern Doris; and the lost Epic of Aegimius, of about the same date, seems to have presupposed the same story.
Also in the 5th century Pindar ascribes to Aegimius the institutions of the Peloponnesian Dorians, and describes them as the Dorian folk of Hyilus and Aegimius, and as originating from Pindus (Pyth. V. 75: cf. Fr. ~).
After of this we have the historicians Herodotus and Thoukidedes. Their stories are known.
But I will stay in the latter. Thucydides agrees in regarding the Parnassian Doris as the mother-state of the Dorians (i. 507) and dates the invasion (as the writers of the 7th B.C.) eighty years after the Trojan War; this agrees approximately with the pedigree of the kings of Sparta, as given by Herodotus, and with that of Hecataeus of Miletus (considered as evidence for the foundation date of an lonian. refugee-colony). Thucydides also accepts the story of Heracleid leadership.
There was a Doric dialect of the Greek language, as well as a Doric column in architecture and a Dorian mode in music (see also guitar chord roots). The column was noted for its simplicity and strength, the music for its martial qualities.
The Doric dialect was spoken along the coast of the Pelloponese, in Crete and south west Asia Minor. In later periods other dialects predominated, most notably the Attic. The main characteristic of Doric was the preservation of indoeuropean /a/(α) where Attic had /e/(η).
There are plenty of ancient writing inscriptions.
The Dorians are invisible archeologically.
The Dorians are not invisible as about the static ancient evidence. We know very well the Doric Rhythm in the Statue.
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Arts/Temple/Doric.jpg
There are of course and others such as ancient written inscriptions.
There is no archeological record of the Dorian movements, and the mythic arguments are largely conjectural, based on folk traditions about the Dorian home originally having been in northwest Greece.
By the meaning archaeological record understand the writing record in the above quote.
The major archaeological record of the Dorian movements, were mythic arguments are largely conjectural, based on folk traditions about the Dorian home originally having been in northwest Greece. Major proofs are the discovers of Troy, Knossos, Muckeane and of course Pella.
So how assume Mr Borza that the mythic arguments or poets a are not based when according those we had found all this archaeological sites?
And of course we have the first historicians as about the written archaeological recording. Herodotus and Thucydides
The explanation for the connection between the Dorians and the Macedonians may be more ingenious than convincing, resting uncomfortably on myth and conjecture.
If anyone read the Andronicus Book as about the findings of the Pella you will read plenty of archaeological proofs as about the similarities of the Macedonians and the rest of the Dorians. And the book had written before the founding of the biggest ancient inscription. The Pella katadesmos.
You know very well that finding of them is the reason of the recognised ancient Macedonian Language us a Greek ancient language.
Cf. Ul. Wilcken (Alexandre le Grand, op. cit., p. 33) state .... "It seems more and more certain that the Macedonians were a Greek tribe related to the Dorians. However, as they stayed high up in the distant north, they could not participate in the progress of civilization of the Greek people that migrated southward...".
and Borza in Makedonika (pages 49-59) said....
First , the matter of the Hellenic origins of the Macedonians: Nicholas Hammond's general conclusion that the origin of the Macedonians lies in the pool of proto-Hellenic speakers who migrated out of the Pindus mountains during the Iron Age is acceptable.
Then he says that ancient Macedonians were hellenized.!:wacko:
Is he reliable as expert for the Macedonian history ?