Origin of the Ancient Greeks

[Flipper]

Originally Posted by 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?

I really wish someone deciphers Linear A. It would change our history forever and shut some bad mouths. Lets see if the Ithaca tablets (Linnear B) offers any help to complete any vocabulary gaps that may help with the decypherment of Linner A.

[Lakonian]

The decipherment of Linear B brought a closer study of the evolution of the Greek language and the theory that it actually came into existence in Greece. Bands of warriors entered Greece, it is true, but not as Greeks. When they came to predominate, Proto-Greek evolved in Greece from their language, which took elements from the pre-Greek there. For example, the word for cypress is pre-Greek, and yet it evolved into dialectical forms. The proto-Greeks could only have encountered it in Greece. Wherever the Dorians were coming from, it was not outside Greece.

So from this we can still come to a conclusion that we are only seperate from our ancestors in name i.e Dorians, Pelasgians, Ionians, Myceneans, Achaens, Aeolians...nothing else. Hellas came only into great use when we were all slowly uniting, apart from that i think from what i have read Athenians only believed they were true Hellenics (politics)

Did Dorians introduce Iron to Hellas?

[Istor]

I tend to believe the IE theory. An IE people arrived in Greece throught Asia minor AND from the North. Those people met a non IE people in Greece (Pelasgians). IE hellenized Pelasgians and now we are Greeks. Many Athenians were of Pelasgian origin, that's why they believed that they were "autochthonous" and were proud of it. They humiliated Dorians (Spartans) for settlements.

The Egyptian and Phoenician settlements were unimportant, if true. But I believe that Phoenicians had Cretan origin and if Linear A is proven Greek, then they had Greek origin.

[Orphic_Hymn]

Originally Posted by Flipper

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?

Here are 2 pics of seals found at Sesklo.





The second pic of a maiandros type maze is the most common pattern in the seals that have been found.

[akritas]

As shown comprehensively by David W. Packard in Minoan Linear A , the Linear A syllables can be read sensibly with linear B valuesL.R. Palmer, following the hypothesis that Linear A words could be read using Linear B sign values, showed in 1965 that some phrases could be understood if seen to be related to the Luwian language of Asia Minor.

As J. Chadwick several times repeated it :
"The Greek language arose through the mixture of a group of Indo-European speakers with an earlier population, and this group penetrated Greece at some time during the Middle Helladic or Early Helladic III period".

This statement has long been considered as indisputable, and it is only recently that J. Coleman (2000), on the basis of the most recent archaeological findings, has proposed that the "Proto-Greeks" arrived from the north at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, in the later 4th mill BC

Two big questions as about the Greeks Linears or Chadwick theory also we must consider as about the origin of the ancient Greeks

• The first weakness of the Chandwick Theory is its total disregard of the most ancient tradition. For all the ancient authors, the Ionians were "the first Greeks". There are no conflicting views about this among Herodotus, Strabon or Pausanias, although there is one concerning the origin of the Ionians. I will notice, in particular, that Herodotus - who call them "Pelasgoi" - established a link between the Ionians and the oldest inhabitants of the Cycladic Islands. He wrote : "The inhabitants of the islands ... were also a Pelasgic people. They were later called Ionians for the same reason as the Ionians who came from Athens.." I add also the the Istor comment...!

• Chadwick theory essentially rests upon a study of the Greek Dialects. Before proceeding to a complete examination of the problem, it is interesting to remind the best established facts in this field. The classification of the Greek dialects into four groups (Ionic-Attic, Arkado-Cypriot, Aiolic and West Greek) has been universally accepted, as has also been agreed by all scholars that "Greek" (or at least its Indo European component) has been brought by "immigrants from the north". Another strong geographical implausibility of the Chadwick theory comes from the comparison between Cypriot and Attic concerning their links with Mycenaean. If we accept that Attic shares very few features in common with Mycenaean (See hereafter), the situation is different with the Arkadian and Cypriot dialects. The links are there sufficient to let one believe in a common ancestor - the Mycenaean - c.1200 BC, i.e. at a time close to the end of the Mycenaean era. Hence a killing objection : how to explain, then, in the frame of the RC Theory, that after the disappearance of the Mycenaean World the Arkadian dialect remained closer to the far-away Cypriot than to the nearer Attic dialect ?..

Despice the questions in my opinion the Chadwick (some call it also as Risch-Chadwick) theory is the most comprehensible theory bases in real facts and not in assumptions.

PS
@Flipper I like your signature

[Flipper]

Very nice post Akritas!
I've read about Colemans objection before. I have these points to this post:

1) The Luwian theory is getting closer lately. Many linguists while speculating the origins of the Greek language include the Luwian people as a background. I also found out that Αλάτι which has remained the same from the Pelasgian is Αλάτι in the Luwian language as well. Also the παρ-/ά (forward, accross, more than) that we use in front of words e.g παραπάνω, παράτολμο, παραπλήσιο, παράτολμο, παρυφή is Luwian as well. Then we have the verb πατώ, πατείς, πατεί which derives from the Luwian word pati (foot). The word μέλι (honney) is common in Luwian, Hittite and Phrygian. Remember also the Carrians who were accepted as Hellenes during the classical years were originally Luwians not Greeks.

2) The intruders that changed the Pelasgian language to become Greek could be the Phrygians in some extend.

English: man
Koine: Andras/Aner
Phrygian: Anar
Pelasgian: Andras

English: fast/improved
Koine: Velteros/Veltistos
Phrygian: Valeos, veleros

English: swamp
Koine: Valtos
Phrygian: Velte

English: brother
Koine: Fratir
Phrygian: Vratir (Note how F becomes Β (V) like in Doric)
Pelasgian: Fratir

English: warm
Koine: Thermos (Δωτ. Ω θερμέ)
Phrygian: Germe

English: bad
Koine: κακό-ν
Phrygian: kakon

English: scratch
Koine: κνάω (κνούμαι --> scratch myself)
Phrygian: knoumane
Hittite: knu

English: Mother
Koine: Mitir
Doric: Matir
Phrygian: Matir

English: Great
Koine: Mega
Phrygian: Meka

English: Low (person)
Koine: Chamelos
Phrygian: Zamelo (means also "slave")

The similarities are more than obvious. It looks like "A" very old language followed different directions. Note that most scholars think that Phrygian is somehow connected to the Greek branch of Indo-European languages *. Those who do not include it into the Greek branch, include it in the same group of languages as Greek. This group includes Greek, Phrygian, Armenian. A minority claims there might be a connection to Illyrian, but there is no hard evidence for it, just assumptions.

In any case we might have the equation Pelasgian + Phrygian + Anatolian = proto-Greek.


An obvious question is: If most scholars believe that Phrygian (which is a difficult language for a greek to understand) is connected to the Greek branch of languages, HOW ON EARTH can it be a debate about the macedonian language????????????

[Flipper]

Originally Posted by akritas

PS
@Flipper I like your signature

That thread has been a source for some people when debating It also topped the google lists. A higher level of debate compared to the usual fyromian blah blah. Besides it was between some of us and a person doing history for a living. It deserves to get more publishity!

[Orphic_Hymn]

Originally Posted by Flipper

Besides it was between some of us and a person doing history for a living.

While I'll agree that he did produce some interesting arguments and that it was a good debate, don't give him that much credit..
It was he that had claimed:

The reason why the "Ionian Sea" is west of Greece is because it was named after a legendary Illyrian chief by the name of Ionius, and not after the "Ionians".

I'm sure you see my point.

[Flipper]

Orphic...

I don't think he believed all the things he said. I think it all started with a beef he had with Akritas. If you look closely on his tactics, it was mainly sofistics. He just tryed to win the debate not to reach a result and prove he is right. He had access to university areas (JSTOR etc) and could missinterprete some data from there if he wanted. Insted he lied to me about the dictionary definitions. It was all about an ego thing in the end. Anyway, lets get back to the subject.

[akritas]

Greeks gradually occupied the Aegean territory from the end of the 3rd(Linear A) or the beginning of the 2nd millennium b.c(Linera B). But it is still not clear where they dwelt before this invasion, or, in other words, where the proto-Greek region lay.

Study of toponyms shows clearly that this region lay approximately in north-western Greece. The proofs are as follows:

1. Here the typical pre-Greek toponyms are lacking.
2. Almost all toponyms, especially the most important ones from this region, are of Greek origin and they often show archaic Greek features. Toponyms: Ήπειρος,Θεσπρωτία,Καμμάνια,Άργος, Βουχετός,Γόννος,Οσχεσμός etc. Hydronyms:Αχερών,Πηνειός . Oronyms: Κεραυνία, Πίνδος.
3. The two common Greek denominations Έλληνες (Hellenes) and Γραικοί (Greeks) originate from Epirus.
4. The most characteristic toponym Άργος(Argos) here is which occurs in this region four times; it means '(the) white town' and is of Greek origin.
5. The original region of the ancient Macedonians was the basin of the river Haliakmon. The oldest toponyms here are very similar to the North-western ones. Numerous isoglosses connect the Macedonian language with different Greek dialectS. This fact attests the genetic identity of Macedonian and Greek. However, there is an essential difference between Macedonian and all other Greek dialects. This is the change of IE ma into ta in Greek which was completed before the epoch of the Mycenaean documents(Linear B). In Macedonian IE ma changed into m. This difference which separates Macedonian from all other Greek dialects is therefore very old. There are also other differences. Anyway the last foundings given a lot of informations regarding in which Greek linguistic group belong the Macedonian dialect