Origin of the Ancient Greeks

[Spartan]

Originally Posted by Voulgaroktonos

Guys I really dont know much about these subjects. One question though: how can we only have a little influence from IndoEuropeans when our language is Indo-European?

Indoeuropean is just the most accepted THEORY based primarily on language.

Next, it is possible that there were small groups of Indoeuropeans that came down into the peninsula and became the rulers thus spreading their language.
But that does not mean that the majority of the language or culture is Indoeuropean in origin.

[Spartan]

From Herodotus The Histories, Book 8, page 463;

"When what is now called Greece was occupied by the Pelasgians, the Athenians, a Pelasgian people, were called Cranai. In the reign of Cecrops they acquired the name of Cecropidae. At the succession of Erecthius they changed their name to Athenians; and when Ion, the son of Xuthus, became general of their armies, they took from him the title of Ionians."

Book 1, pg.22

"...Granted, then, that these are a fair sample of the Pelasgian race, one may conclude that the Athenians, being themselves Pelasgian, changed their language when they were absorbed into the Greek family of nations. In Creston and Placia the same language is spoken, but it is not the language of the surrounding country: which indicates that these people did not change their language when they changed their home. I believe myself that the Greek peoples have always spoken the same language, but they were weak after their seperation from the Pelasgians of whom they were a branch, and have since grown from the small beginnings to their present numbers by the addition of various foreign elements, amongst which were the Pelasgians themselves. I do not think the Pelasgians, a non-Greek people, ever became very numerous or powerful."



From what I can tell we are both Pelasgian(Autochthonous) and other elements.(Graeci, Hellenes, Dorians. Maybe even some Illyrian and Thracian?) It seems though that he believed the Greek peoples early on broke away from the Pelasgians, became numerous and then return to where they had originated. He does of course differentiate the later remnance of the Pelasgians who remained that way for 1000's of years as non-Greek due to their time of seperation. Anyways we all know later that the Pelasgians were completely assimilated into the Greek Ethnos so they once again became Greek.

[Flipper]

Herodotus exact words are "The Hellenes never changed their speech. It was a branch of Pelasgian that separated from the main body". As for the Thracians I believe Phrygians played some role, that is why there is a similarity in the language.

[Orphic_Hymn]

Herodotus' text (1.56-58) is quite interesting and I have yet to find an analysis that would cover the questions that arise from the contradictions found in his text.

While he does suggest that the Pelasgians were a 'foreign/barbarian' people (Πελασγικὸν ἔθνος, ἐὸν βάρβαρον), he contradicts his statement by mentioning that the Hellenes had separated from them (ἀποσχισθὲν μέντοι ἀπὸ τοῦ Πελασγικοῦ) literally making them brethen and thus not foreign to one-another.

Another contradiction is that while he mentions this separation, and supports that the Hellenes had always spoken the same language (τὸ δὲ Ἑλληνικὸν γλώσσῃ μὲν ἐπείτε ἐγένετο αἰεί) which was alien to the allegedly 'barbaric' Pelasgian language. In 2.52 when claiming that the Hellenes received the names of their Gods from the Pelasgians he suggests that they (Pelasgians) called them 'θεοὺς' because they (ὅτι κόσμῳ θέντες τὰ πάντα πρήγματα καὶ πάσας νομὰς εἶχον) and by doing so gives a purely Hellenic (non-IE) etymology to the word 'Gods' since it derives from "τίθημι" (place, put) and by doing so clearly indicating that Hellenic and Pelasgian are closely related.

His perception of what is and what isn't proper conduct in the suggested 'Hellenization' is also notable.
While he does suggest that the Hellenes after having separated from their own brethen (Pelasgians), managed to grow by assimilating various 'barbaric' tribes, the majority of which were Pelasgians. He also notes that the Atheneans were one of these assimilated people which became Hellenes by adopting the Hellenic language.

The acceptance of this process is in clear contradiction to his reaction seen in 1.146, in which he critisizes/mocks the Atheneans as the alleged "noblest of the Ionians" (νομίζοντες γενναιότατοι εἶναι Ἰώνων) for marrying Carian women when they settled on the shores of Ionia. Why critisize/mock the Atheneans, the very same people which he originally considered alien to the Hellenes and had allegedly underwent the very same process of Hellenization ?

[Aristotelian]

We are also forgeting a very important fact, or so Plato thinks.

If any of you have read Platos Republic in the dialogues Timaeus you would have read that In Plato's account, Atlantis, lying "beyond the pillars of Hercules", was a naval power which conquered many parts of western Europe and Africa 9000 years before Plato's own time--approximately 9400 BC. Critias who passed on the story to Plato claims that his accounts of ancient Athens and Atlantis stem from a visit to Egypt by the Athenian lawgiver Solon in the 6th century BC.
In Egypt, Solon met a priest of Sais, who told him that Greeks where but meare children....Solon was confused by the Egyptians statement and asked what he ment, he explained to him then that the Greeks who live now( at that point of time 500 - 360 B.C) were only descendents of previous Greeks who had more power then they ever did, and that Athens held most knowledge of these Atlantians(GREEKS).
Basicaly the point was that Greeks always destroyed themselves at some point in time because of corruption pr civil wars but rose again like children only containing fragments of the previous achievements in there memories...kinda freaky and true when you think about it.

Linear A tablet will always contain the truth of our origins, and still its only guesses. But im a firm believer of the Atlantian concept. Im far from Indo Euro as i still dont get where did Indo Euro then come from? Who were there ancestors?

[Orphic_Hymn]

Originally Posted by Flipper

According to the anatolian theory there were more than one migrations. There is no doubt about the first european greek settlement which was Epirus. There is a debate though on the year. Some talk about 7000BC while others say 3200BC. I tend to believe 3200BC sounds a bit more sensible.

Not sure which settlement you're talking about but we definitely can link customs seen in Sesklo and Dimini to those seen in later Mycenean Hellas. For example there are finds of seals which depict the 'Maiandros', the unique for its age fortifications of Sesklo and Dimini, the pottery styles that suggest continuety and evolution instead of importation or even the older find in Frachthi which indicates that the 'ovolos' custom of placing a coin (then of course a simple rock since coins weren't invented) in the mouth of the deceased which was continued well into the Hellenistic era.

Actually from what I've came across the alterations in cultural aspects haven't been considered as so drastic to support the invaders/new settlers theory, but rather indicate evolution.

The answer is imports and agriculture.

The Anatolian theory was put on the map after C.Renfrew's "Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of the Indo-European Origins" published in 1987.
But since then its interesting that his later work hasn't been circulated nor advertised as much.
In his 1998 " The Tarim Basin, Tocharian, and Indo-European Origins: A View from the West", he agrees with the views of I.Diakonov, K.Wiik, R.Gray, Q.Atkinson, K.Rexova, D.Frynta and J.Zrzavy that the home of the IE (if they ever did exist) was the Balkan region.

We should also note that he, E.S. Higgs, Peter Bogucki, M. R. Jarman, J.M Hansen..etc seem to agree to a simultanious domestication of animals and development of farming with the East, rather to the imported theory..

If we were to take it a bit further, we could also note "Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece" by Ernestine S. Elster, Colin Renfrew which concludes and Gimbutas agrees with their notes that metallurgy was so well developed in in the region during the 5th mil. BC, that it is simply impossible for it to have been introduced from Anatolia or the Near East.

[akritas]

The decipherment of Linear B (we must consider that 48 from her 64 marks they show they emanate from Linear A) proves that the Cretan language of Minoan season was Greek. It is absolutely sure that this Greek language had pattern in oral level much older days, after it is not possible the oral format to be developed at the same time with written.

More specifically, provided that we are for so much perfect in the expression of meanings language, then we must to suppose the existence of long stage of growth and her treatment. Thus professor Babiniotis makes quote for age of Greek language "40 and more centuries", rather conservatively placed for obvious reasons.

If it is combined this observation with thenew discoversofthe Anthropology orArchaeology, that did not exist immigratory wavefrom not natives to the Hellenic space, the format of basic corethe Greek vocabulary it is reduced a lot before the configuration of closed settlements of 7millennium in the Sesklo and elsewhere?


Diodoros Sikeliotis was right finally when speak for alived ancient Greek civilizations and the most important the develpment of the alphabet?

[Spartan]

Originally Posted by Orphic_Hymn

Herodotus' text (1.56-58) is quite interesting and I have yet to find an analysis that would cover the questions that arise from the contradictions found in his text.

While he does suggest that the Pelasgians were a 'foreign/barbarian' people (Πελασγικὸν ἔθνος, ἐὸν βάρβαρον), he contradicts his statement by mentioning that the Hellenes had separated from them (ἀποσχισθὲν μέντοι ἀπὸ τοῦ Πελασγικοῦ) literally making them brethen and thus not foreign to one-another.

Another contradiction is that while he mentions this separation, and supports that the Hellenes had always spoken the same language (τὸ δὲ Ἑλληνικὸν γλώσσῃ μὲν ἐπείτε ἐγένετο αἰεί) which was alien to the allegedly 'barbaric' Pelasgian language. In 2.52 when claiming that the Hellenes received the names of their Gods from the Pelasgians he suggests that they (Pelasgians) called them 'θεοὺς' because they (ὅτι κόσμῳ θέντες τὰ πάντα πρήγματα καὶ πάσας νομὰς εἶχον) and by doing so gives a purely Hellenic (non-IE) etymology to the word 'Gods' since it derives from "τίθημι" (place, put) and by doing so clearly indicating that Hellenic and Pelasgian are closely related.

His perception of what is and what isn't proper conduct in the suggested 'Hellenization' is also notable.
While he does suggest that the Hellenes after having separated from their own brethen (Pelasgians), managed to grow by assimilating various 'barbaric' tribes, the majority of which were Pelasgians. He also notes that the Atheneans were one of these assimilated people which became Hellenes by adopting the Hellenic language.

The acceptance of this process is in clear contradiction to his reaction seen in 1.146, in which he critisizes/mocks the Atheneans as the alleged "noblest of the Ionians" (νομίζοντες γενναιότατοι εἶναι Ἰώνων) for marrying Carian women when they settled on the shores of Ionia. Why critisize/mock the Atheneans, the very same people which he originally considered alien to the Hellenes and had allegedly underwent the very same process of Hellenization ?

I don't really think its a contradiction.

I believe he means that all the Greeks were Pelasgians originally both culturally and linguistically, but through time and mixture with other groups the Greeks evolved into what they were in Herodotus' time. Thus their language and culture changed so much that it was no longer recognisable to the Pelasgians. So the Pelasgians in Herodotus' time were not considered Greek since they remained isolated from the mixing. By Herodotus' time there was already a cultural superiority of the "Greeks" over those who remained more "primitive", so that is why he mocks the Athenians for marrying the Carian women.

[Flipper]

Originally Posted by Spartan

I don't really think its a contradiction.

I believe he means that all the Greeks were Pelasgians originally both culturally and linguistically, but through time and mixture with other groups the Greeks evolved into what they were in Herodotus' time. Thus their language and culture changed so much that it was no longer recognisable to the Pelasgians. So the Pelasgians in Herodotus' time were not considered Greek since they remained isolated from the mixing. By Herodotus' time there was already a cultural superiority of the "Greeks" over those who remained more "primitive", so that is why he mocks the Athenians for marrying the Carian women.

I will agree with Orphic. Herodotos doesn't say the Greek language was unrecognisable for the pelasgians but that he is not certain how pelasgian sounded it the beginning.

[Flipper]

Originally Posted by Orphic_Hymn

Not sure which settlement you're talking about but we definitely can link customs seen in Sesklo and Dimini to those seen in later Mycenean Hellas. For example there are finds of seals which depict the 'Maiandros', the unique for its age fortifications of Sesklo and Dimini, the pottery styles that suggest continuety and evolution instead of importation or even the older find in Frachthi which indicates that the 'ovolos' custom of placing a coin (then of course a simple rock since coins weren't invented) in the mouth of the deceased which was continued well into the Hellenistic era.

I know that they have an acropolis which is typical for a greek city. Didn't know about the Maiandros though. Do you have any pictures?