|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Jan 29, 2008 4:10:37 GMT -5
I had to start this new thread as I realise the one about Alexander the Great (ATG) where I would otherwise have posted it has been locked (damn you Ajax … LOL). It is really just a round-up account of my views on the topics discussed in that thread which I didn¢t have a chance to post. I don¢t really expect to convince the unconvinced – after all, most of us have too much invested in our respective cherished mythologies to readily accept an alternative view …
It is unlikely that I will further contribute to this topic in any major way as unfortunately I will have even less time than I normally do (got to go back to work). Also I am certain that we will probably just be going over old terrain traversed many times before… (Does anyone know where that old topic concerning the ¡Ethnogenesis of the Albanians¢ has gone?)
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Jan 27, 2008 7:38:45 GMT -5
BigBlackBeast, You are telling lies and denying the facts. Why are you denying the fact that many Macedonian kings had Illyrian wifes and mothers? I'm not denying anything and I certainly do not set out to tell lies. I never professed to be an expert in ancient Macedonian royal genealogy and you may very well have information in this sphere of greater depth than what I possess. If you paid attention you would have seen that my focus was on outlining the ethnic affinities of the Epirotes and Makedones. That royalty in both these areas (and I'm not just talking about the major royal houses but also of smaller houses in those areas) married foreigners there is no doubt. Philip II for example made a habit of marrying a new woman whenever political/military circumstances dictated. Thus he was first married to Phila from the royal line of the Elimeians; to Olympias of the Molossian royal house; to Cleopatra the daughter of one of his generals; to Philinna of Larissa in Thessaly; to Nikasopolis of Pherae in Thessaly; to Meda of the Getae and to the Illyrian Audata whose name was promptly and very tellingly hellenized to Eurydi.ke upon her marriage. (This thing doesn't let me place an 'i' in Eurydike where the asterisk is?!) Thus there were certainly marriages with various non-Macedonian groups including Illyrians but how many Illyrian women actually bore Macedonian kings - I don't know. However, neither Philip nor Alexander were one of them. If you have facts to supply .... supply them and cut the accusations**. [** polite internet tone used rather than actual tone employed in real life]
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Jan 27, 2008 7:04:53 GMT -5
BTW What's with this karma thing?
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Jan 27, 2008 7:04:17 GMT -5
And I have the same question: How were the Epiriotes Albanised?? Teuta, when were the Epirotes ever Albanised? The only answer that could be salvaged for such a question is: "sometime after the Albanians migrated/invaded Epirus in the early fourteenth century ... and then only in certain districts". I guess your question is similar to asking: How were the inhabitants of the Argocorinth and Attikoboiotia Albanised? If anything the Albanian settlers in Epirus were Epirotised ... Cheers
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Jan 27, 2008 6:55:39 GMT -5
And I have the same question: How were the Epiriotes Albanised?? ?
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Jan 27, 2008 0:12:37 GMT -5
Thank you BBB... for clearing that up.... it's always pleasant to read your posts..... no matter how long they are... I always make a point of going through them . I think this has been discussed to the bone... in the last 6 years that I have been here and like Anittas said there is no new evidence brought to the table... so this thread will be closed very soon.... Thanks Kanari ... I realise I write a 'little' too much most times. I don't usually have the time to respond piecemeal and tend to save it up for when I can sit in front of the computer for a long enough period of time ... Cheers
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Jan 26, 2008 21:30:25 GMT -5
Alexander the Great had Illyrian stock. His father was partly Illyrian and his mother was fully Illyrian. difference at all, except that Greeks are thick-minded, they can't recognize the truth, the origin and ethnic purity is what Greeks are most sensitive about OK I’ll take the bait … I know that’s what it is … Actually Albanian thick-headedness is proverbial in Greece – at least that of the Arvanites. There is an expression “Arvanitiko kefali’ which encapsulates this idea and it is spelled out by the author Strati Mirivilis in his ‘Vasili o Arvanitis’ in which the central character Vasilis is given that nickname because of his stubborn thick-headedness. For the life of me I cannot fully understand this insistence of Albanians to count Epirus as somehow theirs from time immemorial – something that flies in the face of all available evidence. Sure, in more modern times there were many Albanians (or people of Albanian origin) in Epirus mainly along parts of the coast and largely restricted to the district of Thesprotia (Chamuria) and there were Vlachs on the Pindus - both groups flanking a central Greek core. Historical records are very clear as to the arrival of both Albanians and Vlachs into the area; the relevant chronicles are unambiguous and talk of the native Greeks’ distress at their arrival. There is, however, no record of a mass invasion from southern Greece into Epirus to account for their dominant presence there. These simple facts alone make the conclusion an obvious and unavoidable one: the Greeks were there from the start and by the time of the arrival of Albanians and Vlachs in the 14th century they had long absorbed whatever Slavs may earlier have been there. The argument that the Greek zone of Epirus is explained through the hellenization of Illyrian inhabitants there simply does not hold water in the light of evidence from all available sources. I won’t tire you (and myself) with endless primary quotes which will probably be ignored anyway – at any rate these can be readily sourced – but I will leave you with some thoughts … Who? When? How were the Epirotes hellenized? How remarkable it is that only the Epirotes were hellenized and not the Illyrians! Why is it that there is ALWAYS a differentiation between Epirotes and Illyrians despite their undoubted sharing in many respects, of similar culture and tribal institutions; elements that were usually looked down upon as barbarous by the city-state Greeks in respect of both groups. If both were Illyrian-speakers why did the Greeks invariably talk of Illyrians as separate to Epirotes? How is it that there was a clear demarcation in their (the southern Greeks’) thinking as to what tribe was Illyrian and what tribe Epirote? In the absence of any real and salient geographical barrier between the two groups why was it clear to the ancients which were Epirote lands and which Illyrian? Why did this geographic definition change with the southwards advance of recognizably Illyrian groups? What was the ‘trip-wire’ that caused ancient geographers and other observers travelling up the Ionian coast, for instance, to stop talking of Epirotes and to start talking of Illyrians? [In the classical period the ‘boundary’ between the two settled at a ‘line’ in present day south Albania]. How is it that the Epirote tribes – said to be fourteen - can be so readily and (generally) consistently enumerated? What were the criteria for this grouping given that the tribes were not all, at all times, part of one unified ‘Epirote’ state (if this was where your mind was heading)? After all, an Epirote alliance/confederacy was achieved only in the mid-fourth century under the hegemony of the Molossians; talk of Epirotes long preceded this. What of the constant evidence about Illyrian ‘outsiders’ … invaders … marauders – a menace that needed to be addressed? What about the ‘Illyrian mountains’ that overlooked Pelagonia (I mentioned these in the other thread)? Let’s not forget that the Pelagones (like the Orestians, Lykestians and Elimeians) were also Epirotes before later becoming politically Macedonians = ‘Upper Macedonians’. They were probably the most outlying Epirotes at that point in time. Just imagine for a moment you are a Pelagonian in ancient times living in the plain-lands in the vicinity of today’s Bitola and Prilep in the FYROM. You look towards a mountain region to your north or north-west from where marauding bands of Illyrians would periodically come down and devastate your lands. It is not surprising that you know those mountains as the ‘Illyrian mountains’… And we haven’t even mentioned the overwhelming bearing that linguistics has on this discussion ... which is of-course the most direct and unambiguous type of evidence. Why do the available Epirote texts indicate clearly that the Epirotes spoke their own distinct version of North-West Greek, as one would expect them to have done? If this was a product of hellenization why do we see them speaking a version of North-West Greek rather than a dialect carrying some cultural force – Attic for example? From where did they obtain their regional/rural/’peasant’ patois/dialect? The simple answer is that it was their own dialect. So as Epirotes, both Alexander’s mother Olympias and his paternal grandmother Eurydice were NOT Illyrian. As for the Makedones, well, they were even further removed geographically from the Illyrians. Their historic homeland was in the northern foothills of Mount Olympus and thus they originally had the Epirote Pelagones/Orestians/Lynkestians/Elimeians (who would later become the ‘Upper Makedones’) as a geographic buffer between themselves and the Illyrians. The Makedones eventually expanded out of their Olympian home to take alluvial Emathia and later the rest of lowland regions now known as the ‘Salonika’ plain. Eventually they would incorporate their cultural and linguistic cousins, the ‘Upper Macedonians’, into their kingdom thus creating an area of greater territorial depth and the main engine of their state. It is entirely logical to expect a fairly ‘organic’ absorption of these regions into the Macedonian state in a way not possible with the various other non-Greek-speaking peoples (largely, but not exclusively, Thracian and Illyrian) many of whom they obliterated in the early stages of Macedonian expansion. The fact that they shared a very similar dialect with the Upper Makedones (as evidenced, for instance, by the Pella katadesmos – and again why are the Macedonians speaking a rough form of North-West Greek?) makes this amalgamation entirely ‘natural’ (for want of another word) and an efficient step which contributed greatly to the state’s growing strength and resources and allowed it eventually to put an end to the Illyrian menace. I cannot imagine the viability of an ‘Austro-Hungary’ set-up in such a restricted area where there was a union of sorts between a Greek and non-Greek entity. That is, between Greek ‘Upper Makedones’ and non-Greek Makedones or vice versa. The strength of the Macedonian kingdom lay in the creation of a state built around the enlarged Greek-speaking ‘Macedonian/Upper-Macedonian’ core sharing basically the same dialect, a reservoir of similar onomastics, culture etc etc. This idea is succinctly captured in the quote from the Oxford Classical Dictionary which I think is useful to repeat here: “ The potentiality of the Macedonian kingdom was realized by Philip II. By defeating the northern barbarians and incorporating the Greek-speaking Upper Macedonians he created a superb army, which was supported by other peoples who were brought by conquest into the enlarged kingdom: Illyrii, Paeonians and Thracians – with their own non-Greek languages – and Chalcidians and Bottiaeans, both predominantly Greek-speaking. ‘He created a united kingdom from many tribes and nations’”. The Macedonians’ own traditions indicate that in getting to their historic home in the Pierian mountains north of Olympus, they travelled down the Aliakmon river probably from what would later become Orestis. Let’s not forget Herodotus’ reference to their dwelling as ‘Makednoi and Dorieis’ in the Pindus. In my opinion this large Makednian/Dorian group splintered into the various tribes that would later make their own destinies in different parts of the Greek world while some of the remnants coalesced in Orestis retaining the Makednian name. Eventually they migrated down the Aliakmon to land in their historic homeland in the northern foothills of Olympus and from there the rest ‘is history’. It is also significant in my opinion that the Aliakmon basin, Pieria and Emathia - representing most of the lands of the Upper Makedones and the original homelands of the Makedones themselves - remained Greek-speaking until modern times and were apparently the areas to which the Greek Macedonians receded in the wake of the Slavic flood. I won’t bother with discussions about the prehistory of Epirus and western Macedonia ie the ‘Proto-Greek zone, and the traditions of so many Greek tribes in antiquity pointing to origins in those areas. There is literally a world of documentary evidence underlining the fact that Epirotes and Makedones were essentially Greek. But, other than esoteric mumo-jumbo name-playing, what do the Albanians have for these groups’ supposed Illyrianess? … that they were often called ‘barbarians’ and the inferences of some nineteenth and early twentieth century historians drawn from this… So, in conclusion, Alexander was Greek from both sides of his family. But ultimately, even if this wasn’t the case, as BR pointed out … would it really have made a difference?
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Jan 23, 2008 3:45:07 GMT -5
It is inhabited by several different ethnic groups. The largest group is known as "Slavofyromanians" which amounts to approximately 45% of a total population of around two million people. (within, Greeks totaling a 35%).Only the south-western corner of the FYROM, comprising about 10% of the FYROM's territory constituted a part of Macedonia proper it was inhabited by the Greek-speaking pelagones (or Pelagonians) and other smaller and more obscure Greek tribes such as the Derriops, Argesmi and Neopoliroi. This area as a whole was known as Pelagonia, a name retained (as Pelagonia) by the Slavophones, perhaps to bolster their claim to historical continuity in the area. Originally the Pelagonians like many other Greek-speaking tribes of what became known as 'Upper Macedonia", such as the Oresrions, Elimejans, Tymphoeans and Lynkesrions were counted as Epirotic or Molossian tribes. They had much in common with the archaic Greek culture of Epirus. Together with the Epirot tribes proper they formed a broad cultural continuum straddling the Pindus mountain range. The geographer Strabo (64 BC - c. 21 AD) remarked that some earlier authors regarded the area as a single cultural unit on the basis of a similar dialect ("North-west Greek"), tonsure and a short cloak known in Greek as the chlamys. In antiquity the most important town of the region was situated a few kilometres from today's Bitola (Monastir) and was called, in the typical fashion of the Dorian Greeks, Heraelcia - the city of Herakles (Hercules). It was situated in that small part of ancient Lynkestis that now lies within the FYROM (the major part of Lynkestis is in Greece). Around 483 BC, the Argeodoi Makedones (the original Macedonians themselves) incorporated Pelagonia and the rest of "Upper Macedonia" into their kingdom. It was only then that the whole area became politically "Macedonian". This conquest was part of a process of expansion which commenced when the Macedonians "outgrew" their homeland in the hill country of Pieria sometime in the middle of the sixth century BC. This homeland, once known as Makedonk, was situated in the northern foothills of Mount Olympus. ROFL Most of Karta's extract above (the bits between "Only the south-western corner" and "Mount Olympus") is taken from a little book entitled "The Stolen Sun" which I wrote a good 15 years ago! Although flattered that some of my work seems to have landed in cyberspace, I really wish the copying/editing was more thorough. The actual text should read: Only the south-western corner of the FYROM, comprising about 10% of the FYROM's territory constituted a part of Macedonia proper. It was inhabited by the Greek-speaking Pelagones (or Pelagonians) and other smaller and more obscure Greek tribes such as the Derriopes, Argestai and Neapolitai. This area as a whole was known as Pelagonia, a name retained (as Pelagonija) by the Slavomacedonians, perhaps to bolster their claim to historical continuity in the area. Originally the Pelagonians like many other Greek-speaking tribes of what became known as "Upper Macedonia", such as the Orestians, Elimeians, Tymphaeans and Lynkestians were counted as Epirotic or Molossian tribes. They had much in common with the archaic Greek culture of Epirus. Together with the Epirot tribes proper they formed a broad cultural continuum straddling the Pindus mountain range. The geographer Strabo (64 BC - c. 21 AD) remarked that some earlier authors regarded the area as a single cultural unit on the basis of a similar dialect ("North-west Greek"), tonsure and a short cloak known in Greek as the chiamys. In antiquity the most important town of the region was situated a few kilometres from today's Bitola (Monastir) and was called, in the typical fashion of the Dorian Greeks, Heracleia - the city of Herakles (Hercules). It was situated in that small part of ancient Lynkestis that now lies within the FYROM (the major part of Lynkestis is in Greece). Around 483 BC, the Argeadai Makedones (the original Macedonians themselves) incorporated Pelagonia and the rest of "Upper Macedonia" into their kingdom. It was only then that the whole area became politically "Macedonian". This conquest was part of a process of expansion which commenced when the Macedonians "outgrew" their homeland in the hill country of Pieria sometime in the middle of the sixth century BC. This homeland, once known as Makedonis, was situated in the northern foothills of Mount Olympus. The map reproduced by Karta, by the way, is crap and is not from the book. It clearly does not delimit ancient Pelagonia. Similarly the introductory sentence outlining the supposed proportions of Greeks and Slavs in 'Pelagonia' is not from my pen. Incidentally in relation to my comments above about the region around 'Herakleia' near Bitola and that 'small part of Lynkestis that lies within the FYROM', my understanding now is that this area was in fact actually also part of Pelagonia and the Lynkestians were pretty much confined to the modern Florina region of Greece. Philip did a bit of administrative re-jigging and gave this part of Pelagonia to the Lynkestis district. ... And for the record .. I do not argue anywhere that the modern 'Pelagonia' region 'belongs to Greece' ...
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Jan 23, 2008 3:12:47 GMT -5
I must say this has got to be one of the most bewildering threads I have ever encountered on these boards. Having said that, I think the Greek forum members have over-reacted with respect to GS¢s points although his arguments seem rather confused and are a bit all over the place. Actually, I quite agree with Mojsov¢s observation and with her contention as a whole. I am confident, however, that had the Slavomacedonians - after the finds at Vergina in 1977 - not chosen to make the Sunburst ¡their¢ supposedly long-lost national emblem, given the guaranteed Greek reaction to such an idiotic move, I doubt that the "symbolic weight" attached to that particular symbol would have been anywhere near as great as it is now. I¢m not entirely sure what point you are trying to make GS. Towards the end there you seemed to have been putting much weight on the coin from Potidaia as somehow justifying your view that "the Vergina Sun comes from the Ancient Macedonians, and was used extensively in the region" given that the use of the symbol on the Potidaian coin - which was in circulation between 500-429 BC - predates Philip and Alexander. You really need to be more careful. Potidaia was in fact a Corinthian colony founded about 600 BC and was not incorporated into the Macedonian kingdom until 356 BC under Philip. So in fact your whole (apparent) argument is turned on its head and one would need to consider the direction of influence - with respect to the symbol - as going the other way, that is, from the Chalcidian colonies towards Macedonia, rather than it emanating from Macedonia. Likewise what relevance has the coin from Panticapaeum have to the topic? You have lost me. Under what criteria is it even a Thracian coin given that Panticapaeum was a Greek colony (Milesian to be exact) founded in the Crimea - in Scythian territory if anything ... The fact of the matter, at least as far as I can determine it, is that the Sunburst was used quite extensively throughout the ancient Greek world and probably from quite an early date. [There is some suggestion that the symbol itself - in its recognizable form - may have originated from ¡the east¢ and although this is an entirely plausible possibility, I have as yet not seen any evidence for this]. The ancient Macedonians, as a Greek people, not surprisingly also used this symbol and it became something of a royal emblem for the ruling house of the 'Argeadai Makedones'. With the expansion of the Macedonian empire in the wake of Alexander¢s conquests, and through a process of acculturation, many other peoples also adopted the symbol in various forms whether for official (eg coins), decorative or other purposes. This is hardly surprising. That wider exposure to the Sunburst stemmed from the expansion of Greek influence via Alexander cannot be doubted (although the Lycian tomb example is very likely to have been through earlier cross-Aegean contact as the Lycians were particularly receptive to Greek cultural influences and were hellenised at a rather early date). As for the sunbursts appearing on the garments in the picture of the Virgin Mary you posted ... well this is a very common depiction of her and abounds throughout the Orthodox world. We know, of-course, to whom the Balkan Slavs owe their Orthodox Christian inheritance ... don't we ...! In the link below to the old Illyria boards I give some examples of Sunbursts appearing in various parts of the ancient Greek world most of which pre-date Macedonia¢s later prominence in the area. p071.ezboard.com/fbalkansfrm97.showMessageRange?topicID=668.topic&start=1&stop=20One can literally collect hundreds if not thousands of similar samples.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Jan 23, 2008 23:26:07 GMT -5
Epirotes being of Greek origin is not a established fact and niether that they were Illyrians is not yet established but only a theory. They were probably assimilated into the Greek culture but were before viewed as Illyrians. That the Epirotes were Greek-speakers is certainly more than ‘just a theory’ and is backed up by a multitude of empirical evidence - although admittedly much of it was conjectural and deductive before discoveries of actual texts in their dialect. It is now pretty much the accepted view amongst relevant authorities with the apparent exception of Albanians. In fact the view that they were native Greek-speakers stands at a more established level in terms of extant evidence than the view that the Albanians are descendants of the Illyrians! I have no intention – nor energy – at this stage to outline this evidence (again). The direct proof of actual texts in their native North-west variant of Greek combine with toponymic and onomastic evidence to bolster the early view that the wider Epirot - western Macedonia region together formed what is known as the ‘Proto-Greek’ area. This was the original area where IE people who were recognizably ‘Greeks’ first ‘landed’ and it was their staging post prior to their subsequent invasion of the land that was to be their historic home from then on. It remained a reservoir of Greeks and would on more than one occasion pump Greek tribes into Greece. The traditions of many Greek groups that had eventually settled in ‘Greece proper’ linked them to this zone and the area remained a significant religious centre for the Greeks as a whole. It was associated in different ways with both the Helloi and Graikoi tribes that would variously lend their names to the ‘Greeks’ as a people. This long-held view/theory of a Proto-Greek zone has recently received some direct linguistic support with the finds at Aiane in Greek Macedonia. Aiane is in the Kozani region which covers the ancient Elimeia/Elimiotis area which was early on considered Epirot/Molossian (but later politically ‘Upper Macedonian’) and was situated in this Proto-Greek zone. illyria.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=hellasgreece&action=display&thread=1197863108The Epirotes and Macedonians are always differentiated from the Illyrians despite initially sharing similar tribal culture and institutions. There is said to have been 14 tribes amongst the Epirotes to the consistent exclusion of any Illyrian groups amongst them and there are references to Macedonians needing interpreters to communicate with the Illyrians. The rather ‘organic’ incorporation by the Makedones proper of the Elimeioi, Tymphaeoi, Orestoi, Lynkestai and Pelagones – originally Epirot/Molossian tribes who henceforth would become the ‘Upper Makedones’ – into their kingdom so that the combined area became the central engine of their state speaks volumes in my opinion. As summarized in the Oxford Classical Dictionary: “ The potentiality of the Macedonian kingdom was realized by Philip II. By defeating the northern barbarians and incorporating the Greek-speaking Upper Macedonians he created a superb army, which was supported by other peoples who were brought by conquest into the enlarged kingdom: Illyrii, Paeonians and Thracians – with their own non-Greek languages – and Chalcidians and Bottiaeans, both predominantly Greek-speaking. ‘He created a united kingdom from many tribes and nations". The Epirotes were viewed as Illyrians? By whom? It is certainly not an observation made by any ancient observer. This false deduction is a ‘modern’ one (appearing within the last couple of centuries) and hinges purely on occasional ancient references to the Epirotes as ‘barbarians’ - an entirely misconstrued term that carries far more involved connotations than the simplified definition many in these forums would like to leave it with. The assumption was that if the Epirotes were called ‘barbarians’ they were not Greeks … and if not Greeks they could only have been Illyrians! Another interesting bit of information bearing on this discussion has recently come to my attention. A number of ancient authors (Livy and Strabo amongst them) state that the Erigon River (the ancient name for today’s Crna Reka river in the FYROM) “ rose in the Illyrian mountains[/i]”. Now the Crna Reka rises in the mountains above the Pelagonian plain largely in the Busheva mountain range with many tributaries also being fed from the Ilinska and Plakenska mountain range. So clearly from the perspective of the Pelagones (Greek-speaking Epirot/Molossians and later ‘Upper Macedonians’) the Illyrian lands began, in their parts, beyond those particular mountains. This is almost precisely the areas now inhabited by the Albanians of the FYROM – a fact that serves to further emphasize the point I made before about geographic continuity as evidence linking the Albanians and the Illyrians. For your information the Illyrians in the area of these ‘Illyrian mountains” were the Penestae who were centred around Kichevo (Uscana) in the valley of the Treska river (the ancient Artatus river) and the Atintani in the mountains above Lake Ohrid (Lake Lychnitis). So here we have yet another tid-bit of information serving to demarcate an Epirote (later Macedonian) region/people from Illyria and Illyrians. BR there was constant Illyrian pressure borne on the outlying Epirote tribes nearest to them and they had become interspersed at various points amongst them particularly towards the coast (a phenomenon Hammond dubs the ‘Illyrian anamixis’). This was the case at the time of Hecateus in the 6th century BC. At one stage the Epirotes extended further into central Albania but Illyrian expansion pushed them southwards. Hammond makes a case in his ‘Epirus’ for likely original Greek origins for the Enchelei/Enchellanes, a tribe that was Illyrian in the classical period (this may possibly also have been the case for the Atintani/Atintanes). Apart from the Homeric foundation myths of this tribe together with its Greek name, Hammond presents an argument for its eventual transformation into an Illyrian tribe largely through the agency of dynastic infiltration - if I am remembering correctly – by the Peresadyes chiefs of the Taulantian tribe from Sesarethus (also called Sesarethii). That something similar could have been – and most likely was – occurring amongst Pelagones, Lynkestoi and Orestioi I don’t doubt. This Illyrian pressure and possible Illyrianizing process was fully reversed with the conquests of Philip II.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Jan 23, 2008 9:52:48 GMT -5
Alexander the Great was Illyrian, both from his mother and father side. With respect to you all ... the topic of this thread, together with many others on these boards, attracts the same level of dross every time it is re-hashed ... It's very late and I must turn in, but for the record: 1) That the Albanians represent the descendants of the ancient Illyrians is pretty much a given and is accepted by most credible experts in the field. This fact is probably self-evident if nothing else purely based on geographic criteria. Otherwise what are we proposing ... that the Illyrians disappeared and were replaced wholesale in the very same areas by an alien group that had migrated there - invisibly as far as any sources are concerned - from the Caucasus? It is true that a number of authorities hold that the Albanians should be seen largely as Thracian rather than Illyrian survivals and the connection with Romanian is provided as evidence for this. Personally I don't see a problem with the idea of Thracian accretions to an essentially Illyrian body as there was always some Thracian interaction in those areas where the Illyrians survived, re-formed and eventually regained the upper hand from the Slavs. However, a largely Thracian origin simply does not hold water based again on the areas where Albanians eventually held sway. 2) Later (and in my opinion exaggerated) foreign admixture notwithstanding, the modern Greeks are essentially the descendants of the ancient Greeks in whose land they still dwell and an unambiguously recognizable form of whose language they still speak. Talk of the Greek people being 'invented' only in the early 19th century is meaningless juvenile garbage as is the retarded view that they are apparently a conspiracy that is comprised of a Frankestein-like amalgam of every different ethnic group on earth barring the Greeks themselves!. 3) The ancient Epirotes and Macedonians were Greek in that they spoke their form of Greek as their native tongue despite not participating initially in the sophisticated city-state culture of their southern brethren - for which reason they are sometimes differentiated from them. They are, however, always differentiated from the Illyrians. Accordingly, Alexander was neither Illyrian from his maternal side (the Epirotes being Greek) nor from his paternal side (the Lynkestians, from whom his paternal grandmother stemmed, also being originally of Epirot and therefore Greek stock). 4) The 'Arvanites' are of Albanian origin in that they migrated into Greece largely from the Tosk-speaking areas of today's southern Albania from the 14th century onwards. Perhaps (maybe more than 'perhaps') they brought with them some of the old proto-Greek/Epirot DNA that once existed in those parts! Goodnight all ...
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Dec 19, 2007 7:15:31 GMT -5
I wrote this in another forum (specifically AE) in reference to the finds at Aiani:
As far as I’m aware it is pretty much accepted that the staging-post of the Greeks prior to their incursions into the Greek peninsula was precisely the area comprising more or less the western regions of ‘Macedonia’ (the modern Kozani, Kastoria, Grevena and Florina areas of Greek Macedonia and the Bitola plain-land of the FYROM), Epirus and the southern parts of Albania. This is the so-called ‘Proto-Greek’ area. Although these findings are dated some centuries after the first Greeks had already moved into the peninsula, we would expect that the area was still pretty much inhabited by the descendants of those Greek-speakers who did not make the journey to the south. We know, for instance, that in historical times, the area in question (Aiane and its environs) was inhabited by such tribes as the Elimeioi who are considered – again fairly unanimously (Hammond, Borza et al) and un-controversially – to have been Greek-speakers; specifically Epirotes speaking North-West Greek dialects. It is not unreasonable to hold that this specific area, which was believed to have formed part of the ‘Proto-Greek’ zone (earlier in the second millennium BC) and later known to have been inhabited by Greek tribes (during the classical period), retained a Greek-speaking population between these two periods, that is, during the period to which these finds are attributed (c. the 1300s BC).
The tricky bit is using this information to prove anything specific about the ancient Macedonians. This is simply because we do not really know where they actually were at this particular period in history – assuming they existed at all then as a separate and identifiable group. There is of-course nothing to challenge the view that their ancestors were at this early stage simply part of the ‘Makednoi’ of Herodotus, dwelling in the Pindus range. At the date of these findings a large chunk (no doubt the larger chunk) of the Makednoi would not yet have headed south, through Doris, to become the ‘Dorians’, leaving the remainder to eventually coalesce and reform in Orestis (as per Hammond) before migrating down the Haliakmon to their eventual historical homeland in the Pierian mountains.
As such the finds in question could not be attributed specifically to the Macedonians as an identifiable group. However, the finds could certainly be another piece of evidence pointing to general Greek antecedents given the old ‘Proto-Greek’ view –- that the amorphous amalgam of tribes in the area at the time, (which would also have included the ancestors of the Macedonians), were Greek-speaking –- is now further supported by the new evidence.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Dec 19, 2007 7:31:12 GMT -5
Blockhead? I resemble that remark. For those that do not know, this term "Blockhead" is a derogatory term used toward the Macedonian Slavs. Nice! BBB, you are no intellect. Ouch! That hurts (.... not!). Geez, just one little 'blockhead' reference and I'm no longer an 'intellect'!! LOL Listen GS. My aim has never been to consciously portray myself as an 'intellectual' ... although this is often an observation made about me by others along with their commentary concerning my devastating good looks ... I was not trying to 'slip' the term in as part of some sly design to make it stick - as you seem to imply. My use of the term simply reflected the level of my annoyance at the time. The fact of the matter is that Slav-Macedonians who fly such banners are blockheads - pure and simple. They are entirely clueless on top of being ultra-nationalists. You could rightly label Greeks who make use of the old 'Greece of the five seas and two continents' banner as fanatics, nationalists, zealots and fascists if you will ... but they are not blockheads in the same clueless way.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Dec 18, 2007 6:18:30 GMT -5
The banner posted in the original post looks a like similar to the one below. Exhibits the same nationalistic expansion desires, yet you all get upset at this one. What is the difference. Sends the same message: Actually GS there is a very significant difference between the map/banner posted in the original post and the one above which you imagine is the same sort of thing. The map with Venizelos on the corner was a reality that has come to pass. It represented Greece of the "two continents and five seas". It was issued as a souvenir (probably in 1920 or 1921), no doubt as a means to further promote Venizelos and his achievements, and in this regard is propaganda ... but it was very much the case that at that point in history the Greek state controlled those areas shaded on the map. The Greek state would of-course go on to control even more of the Anatolian hinterland, getting very close to Ankara but foolishly overextending itself in the process before meeting disaster the following year (1922). The Slavic banner, on the other hand, includes a map that represents nothing but the dream frontiers of "Macedonia" as imagined by the Slav-Macedonians, and nothing more. It does not describe any state that has ever existed within those boundaries. In fact it represents an early version of this 'Macedonian' dream country. I am forever amused that this original version of "Mother Macedonia" omits the region of Pieria - the triangular section of land in blue/purple next to the sea. This was of-course the original home of the ancient Macedonians before they expanded to eventually take most of the known world. This is the original 'MAKEDONIS'. It was here that the Macedonians lived 'in the shadow of Olympus' to borrow Borza's phrase. In this little piece of earth is where their oldest foundations existed, including their religious capital 'Dion' (the city of Zeus) and later Aigai (Vergina; their first political capital). The area has remained Greek-speaking since antiquity and was Greek-speaking before the Balkan Wars. Probably because it was unquestionably Greek, and in the absence at that time of specific knowledge about the central importance of this area to ancient Macedonia, many Slav ethnographers ironically did not even count it in Macedonia! The very influential early 20th century Bulgarian ethnographer Vasil K'nchev for instance, did not include the Greeks of this area in statistics concerning the population of 'Macedonia'. The map you present here is quite representative of the traditional depiction of the 'Macedonian' state the Slavs hoped would one day materialize. Aware now of the significance of this little piece of land, the current blockhead version of this map now invariably includes Pieria!
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Dec 18, 2007 7:51:38 GMT -5
Dijedon ....whats up ...(I dont like Donnie) you handle the heavy weights intellectuals and I gots the villagers... ;D ;D ;D ;D Rexxy ... you never fail to crack me up! You're a classic. That $85 is in the mail ...
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Dec 18, 2007 7:49:29 GMT -5
Big Black Beast I must say you make very good points. I assume by your replies that you too are from Macedonia? Northern Greece that is!? Concerning Noel Brailsford's book; it is available to read online. But I am not confident if it is the whole book or just some of the chapters. The era in question was indeed one of much struggle between Bulgarians and Serbs (even Greeks -- Brailsford speaks of 'Bulgarian Greeks' if I am not mistaken) to win over the Slavs of Macedonia. It would be interesting to find out what their own designation for themselves was. Was the term 'makedonci' in usage? I must agree with you in your assertion of geography playing a role in the emergence of local 'specialities', i.e. specific regional identities. However, the ease by which Serbs and Bulgarians respectively persuaded their share of followers among the Slavs of Macedonia might indicate that contemporary FYROM wasn't undeniable Bulgarian as we perceive it. Or to put it better; prior to the adoption of Vuk Karadzic's reforms of the written Serbian language as an official language of the Serbs, a quite peculiar dialect was spoken amidst the 'Serbs' of Kosova, Southern Serbia and small Serbian enclaves along northern Macedonia. Karadzic's language was based on a dialect from Herzegovina, which is what we conveniently call 'Serbo-Croatian'. But most natives of Kosova and Southern Serbia spoke a language/dialect called Torlak. This dialect share some distinctive grammatical features absent in all Slav languages besides Bulgarian. This include the loss of case declension and the development of a suffixed definite article (present also in Albanian and Romanian languagea). These people might perhaps have been 'Bulgarians' in the Middle Age from a linguistic point of view. Politically, however, the Serbian national identity was more or less imposed on their consciousness (Kosovar Serbs did not use to call themselves Serbs in the 19th century, they simply called themselves 'Kosovci' and their language 'nash jezik', meaning our language). Where am I getting at? Well, being that Slavs of Kosova and Southern Serbia accepted Serbdom, it cannot have been hard for their Slav Macedonian neighbours to be persuaded of their 'Serbdom' as well due to linguistic and cultural affinity (a Bulgarian from Skopje might have had more in common with a 'Serb' from Kosova than a Bulgarian from Thrace). Likewise, the Slavs of Ohrid and Eastern Macedonia were easily won by the Bulgarians. In conclusion, the Macedonian Slavs were indeed specific in the sense that they were an intermediate between Torlak speaking 'Serbs'/Serbanized Bulgarians of Kosova and Southern Serbia and Bulgarians of Bulgaria. This made it all such a tight race. Tito saw it as convenient to take a new route and stimulate that geographic identity into becoming a distinctively ethnic one. This worked; I guess the Slavs of Macedonia were tired of being torn from side to side in the struggle between Serbs and Bulgarians. But a historical past was needed for the 'legitimacy' of FYROM; unfortunately, some deemed it as viable to forge history and claim Alexander the Great and ancient Macedonia based on the name. This is the root to the problem. In my opinion, this whole ordeal cannot be revoked. And so, ultimately, some step towards adopting the German model of differentiating between ancient Macedonians and modern ones must be made. Perhaps Northern Macedonia for FYROM and Greek Macedonia for Northern Greece is appropriate? I do not know. What I do know is what I've specified; Slav Macedonians are used to their name, regardless of how recent this selfdesignation has emerged; likewise, Aegean Macedonia was until quite lately known simply as Northern Greece. If I am not mistaken, the adoption was made as a precaution against the Slavs' move, as a counter-attack. Correct me if I am mistaken here. Because I doubt the specific Macedonian identity of Alexander the Great's soldiers was preserved from antiquity to modern days. Donnie, Apologies for taking so long to reply to you ... I see this thread has degenerated into the usual free-for-all (LOL)! Yes I was born Macedonia - in the old Orestian area ... I'll let you determine where that is. I have always said Macedonia - this idea of 'North Greece' is rather foreign to me. I remember my huge confusion the first time I encountered this idea of other 'Macedonians' some many years after migrating to Australia. I assume by 'Bulgarian Greeks' Brailsford was referring to the Patriarchist Greeks the so-called G'rkomani. Unfortunately I can't locate my damned book to have a closer look. As far as I'm aware, the term Makedonci was no doubt in use at the turn of the twentieth century as a regional designator. In the same way the Greeks of the area also used the term Makedones to describe themselves. I understand that the Vlachs likewise referred to themselves as Makedoneni. There may even have been similar terms used by other groups of the area - I remember reading about this a while ago. Of-course all used the term regionally in conjunction with their main ethnic label - that is, whenever they were conscious of such a thing. Your points about the Torlak-speaking region are very interesting and shed a lot of light on the old ethnographic maps that just as often as not counted the area of what we now consider southern Serbia - particularly around Nish - as Bulgar rather than Serb. However, it would appear to me that there was a decidedly greater degree of 'Serbianness' (if I can use such a crude term; too tired ... must sleep) in the Torlak region - in relative terms - than in the regions that would become the FYROM; and within the FYROM area, naturally more so approaching Serbia. In contrast to the Kosovar Slavs calling themselves Kosovci (what did the non-Kosovar Torlak-speakers call themselves?), the Slavs of the broader Macedonian region quite definitely used the term Bulgar to describe themselves and apparently did so over a very long period. That their language can be considered to be intermediate between Torlak and Bulgarian is really an academic construct that has little bearing on this fact. The Torlak Slavs may have been in a position to just as easily go either way between Serbs and Bulgars (I really don't know enough about them) but the Macedonian Slavs were very much Bulgars. The post WWI state that inherited their lands made no real headway in persuading them they were Serbs and the associated 'trauma' of such attempts succeeded only in causing in them a mindset shift that allowed them to be receptive to the later idea that what was previously a familiar regional designator in fact described their ethnicity. Now, allow me to correct you about this idea that the designation 'Northern Greece' was only recently changed to Macedonia. This is one of those annoying self-serving fallacies persistently circulated by the Slav-Macedonians in a manner suggesting they have scored a major point! This is BS. The only entity that changed its name during the late 80s was the Ministry of Northern Greece which became the Ministry of Macedonia and Thrace, no doubt precisely for the reason you mention. For God's sake, the suggestion that the Greeks were somehow afraid to use the term Macedonia is absolutely ludicrous. It is a term that has been used naturally, easily and comfortably for a very long time - certainly for the whole near century that it has formed part of the Greek state ... there has never been any discouragement by the state in using this term. Far from it. I have history and geography books from the 60s, 70s, 80s - the government issued stuff distributed freely to schools - that discuss Macedonia's place within the Greek world for the benefit of primary and secondary school students. In particular the usual format of the geography books is to routinely describe each region of Greece. Invariably the section on Macedonia will begin with reference to it being the homeland of Alexander the Great - 'the king who spread Hellenic culture across the known world'. I personally grew up with constant talk of Macedonia and my mother would often sing to me the very well-known song 'Makedonia Xakousti' (Renowned Macedonia), almost an anthem for (Greek) Macedonia, which all children of her generation, and the one before that, were exposed to. 'Renowned Macedonia land of Alexander ...' now surely you can't have talk of Alexander without talk Macedonia ... can you?! There is a world of evidence to show that the name Macedonia was freely applied by all Greeks to the region that still bears this name - I won't bore you with these although they can be readily sourced. The astounding thing is that as a result of a repeated lie, Greeks are forced to defend themselves in respect of something so fundamental; where there has never been an issue for them whatsover... and to do so even to the likes of educated outsiders like Donnie who understandably would have little reason before them to not accept Slav-Macedonian claims at face value. Such has been the insidious nature of the Slav-Macedonian campaign. The tragedy for me is that there is now perhaps some mild form of hesitation in Greeks from Macedonia saying they are 'Macedonian' even in discussions with other Greeks as a result of the 'Macedonian' issue. It is a frustrating by-product of this dispute and more than a little infuriating. Incidentally, I find the term 'Aegean Macedonia' a little offensive as it is another label coined by our northern friends to suggest a current division of a larger whole which is perhaps in a temporary state of dismemberment. For Greeks 'Aegean Macedonia' is simple MAKEDONIA. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Dec 14, 2007 21:01:50 GMT -5
How are you Rexxy? How's the Pelasgian thing going? BBB .....I vaguely recall you from the past/back of my head refresh my old tired memory bcs this forum has aged me but at same time done wonders for my sex life.... C'mon Rexxy ... I'm not all that much younger than you ... and I'm sure you're just as devastatingly virile as I am ... ... and BTW Pelagonia is spelled with only one 'l' ... and has nothing to do with the Prespa Lakes region. Sorry to break it to you. Cane, thanks for altering my name as I requested. However, I seem to have a real problem logging into this forum and most of the time it's a question of whether I can even get in at all. Most times I have just given up. Whenever I attempt to put in my password in the required field I am redirected to the SOHO music site ... I have had to do some fancy tabbing business I barely understand to get in ... Any suggestions? BBB
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Dec 14, 2007 20:51:35 GMT -5
Yes Donnie … I am fully aware that the matter is far more complex than I presented it. My aim (at 2 in the morning) was to make a specific point by focussing on the effect within Greece, and specifically in Greek Macedonia, if Greece was ‘obliged’ to recognize a ‘Macedonian’ minority by that name. I wanted to emphasize how nonsensical the situation would be and the resentment that it would inevitably cause amongst the Greeks of the region. The name is deeply rooted in the psyche of the Greeks of Macedonia also - however you might see this. The situation would be akin to a ‘Cretan’ minority in Crete or a ‘Thessalian’ one in Thessaly …. or indeed recognition of a separate ‘Greek’ minority in Greece!
As for Brailsford, his book is sitting right here on my shelf (actually on loan - I really must find out where it went!). In my opinion any differences stem largely from the particular historic experience of the Slavs of Macedonia who were essentially Bulgars in every other respect as well as from the different influences they were exposed to being located on the western periphery of the Bulgar world, next to Greeks and Albanians and in a very mixed turmoil-ridden area. Geography has been (as always in history) of prime guiding factor.
This in itself does not mean anything … there are essential differences that would be observable to any traveller between, for example, Cretans, Pontians, Cypriots, Epirotes etc compared with other Greeks yet there is nothing inevitable about such groups eventually forming a separate national consciousness. This could be extended to practically any ethnic group (Sicilains, Corsicans, Montenegrins, Swabians, perhaps Tosks/Ghegs? etc etc).
At any rate Brailsford was published in 1906 at a time when the Serbs were starting to promote the idea – as a counter to the Bulgarians and in hope of Serbian expansion into the area - that the local Slavs were actually Serbs. This dispute as to the ‘nature of the Macedonian Slavs’ would therefore have featured in the thinking of Brailsford (and other writers) making him more sensitive to the ‘differences’ you mention.
I never said ‘Tito invented them in 1945’ (give me a little credit) … but it was certainly when they became part of the Yugoslav state (not when they were part of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, for instance) that any distinct elements were seized upon as a part of a political state agenda aiming to mould them away from the obvious Bulgarian direction they would otherwise have taken. There was certainly some urgency for the Yugoslav state to aim for this in view of Bulgarian claims (as such it was more to stick it up Bulgaria’s rather than Greece’s rear end!). Given the experience of the Macedonian Slavs in the half century before this – fought over by everyone; pulled this way and that – the scene was probably ripe for success in this regard. However, had the Bulgarians succeeded early on in acquiring the regions populated by the Slavs of Macedonia I doubt strongly that they would have had any real problems in absorbing them into the Bulgarian nation (compare this to the earlier clumsy attempt to include them as Serbs).
The idea that certain areas of the Sultan’s domain formed part of ‘Macedonia’ gained currency in the 19th century and the sense of being ‘Macedonian’ was shared by many peoples of the region whether Greeks, Vlachs, or Bulgarians (Slavs). Obviously for the Greeks the name attained a special attachment in view of the area’s place in their history. As such the adoption of the region’s name as an ethnonym by the Slavs is seen as very presumptuous by the Greeks and was received by them with bemused annoyance while that people were safely lodged and ‘out of sight’ within Yugoslavia but with resentful hostility when they declared independence with the mis-appropriated label … and symbols.
Greek-Slav may be a moderate but I don’t think he represents Slav-Macedonian moderates … his particular stance comes from having a Greek father and a Slav-Macedonian mother. I have every respect for moderates who show an understanding for the truth, and I agree that Greeks should look to befriend moderate Slav-Macedonians, but to what extent do such people exist in the FYROM? It appears that from its birth, and its choice to use the Vergina sunburst on its flag, the proportion of whack-jobs there is increasing (take the latest findings concerning the Rosetta stone by certain of their ‘scientists’ and the ever-increasing following it receives, as a case in point). I accept that in part this is a reaction to the attitude of Greece and Bulgaria … and that the nationalist crescendo in the area is due to the voices of zealots from all sides.
Yes, ‘Macedonian’ is a name that most Slav-Macedonians alive today grew up with as children … I really do sympathize with them … it is not their fault - they can but only take what their parent’s have given to them. And here lies the real tragedy, for it is also something handed down to Greek children. I for one will be damned if I don’t impart the Macedonian legacy to my own children. Accordingly, and unfortunately, the scene is set for conflict.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Dec 14, 2007 10:33:33 GMT -5
Hey Cane ... what are the chances you can make bigblackbeast -> BigBlackBeast. I'm sure there is a way for me to do it but I'm a little thick when it comes to this stuff ...
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Dec 14, 2007 10:28:09 GMT -5
GreekSlav for Moderator on Greek forum ! GreekSlav for a Democratic People ...................... yea.....you know it was coming ;D How are you Rexxy? How's the Pelasgian thing going?
|
|