|
Post by Niklianos on Jan 11, 2008 14:54:29 GMT -5
do you know history of your country? , there have thausands historians that dont accept your origin of ancient greeks (from 1800 Ceuntry...note: Nation Modern Greek have createt after 1800) Do you have a list of those MODERN historians and geneticists who make such a claim?? If you do please provide it, otherwise I would expect an apology for your derogatory remarks about the Greeks.
|
|
|
Post by kasso on Jan 11, 2008 16:56:53 GMT -5
Ajax,
the Albanian-Illyrian theory is a scientific theory, not a established fact but a theory with international recognition, accept it!
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on Jan 11, 2008 18:33:50 GMT -5
now, when you post articles of him here you must agree that greeks are serbian-siberian origin, right? You dink so ? Do Videnja FYROM ;D
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on Jan 11, 2008 18:35:04 GMT -5
not a established fact but a theory
|
|
|
Post by kartadolofonos on Jan 12, 2008 0:58:42 GMT -5
Regarding the [Illyrians] and the current Albanians, my personal research with has convinced that he is population of related Greeks with origin [pelasgian] same origin they have also the Greeks and the Italians. The summertime that passed to us I met my friend, geneticist in Oxford, Greek, which in my hypothetical question if the mixture with the Albanian element degrades the genetic characteristics of Greeks,he laughed and said to me “Who it degrades? After Greeks and Albanians are the same population! “, meaning the common [pelasgian] origin. .
|
|
|
Post by kasso on Jan 12, 2008 7:07:10 GMT -5
Ajax,
What you are doing is denying the fact that the Albanian-Illyrian theory is a scientific theory with international recognition.
|
|
|
Post by slowdent on Jan 12, 2008 7:32:23 GMT -5
Prijes. The question still remains. LIKE WHO???
|
|
|
Post by slowdent on Jan 12, 2008 7:33:51 GMT -5
Kasso
we have established a south american - albanian theory here, that no alb could disprove... who cares about illyrians?
|
|
|
Post by myzeqari on Jan 12, 2008 8:47:10 GMT -5
Nation, albania....created after 1900
|
|
|
Post by kasso on Jan 13, 2008 7:08:52 GMT -5
slowdent,
what are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by slowdent on Jan 13, 2008 18:09:01 GMT -5
Kasso do not play the " I do not remember" card. We have proven in the ezboards that the Albanians have nothing to do with illyrians, since they originate from www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/co-caqal.htmla place with ancient history, full of Albanians.
|
|
|
Post by greek1234 on Jan 17, 2008 23:33:58 GMT -5
Interesting lets continue the discussion on how Albanians have no connection with Illyrians.
|
|
|
Post by Niklianos on Jan 18, 2008 15:53:48 GMT -5
Kasso we are still waiting!
Do you have a list of those MODERN historians and geneticists who make such a claim?? If you do please provide it, otherwise I would expect an apology for your derogatory remarks about the Greeks.
|
|
|
Post by Teuta1975 on Jan 19, 2008 1:33:31 GMT -5
Niklianos, and I am waiting those MODERN historians of Slowdent to prove Alb. came from South America. lol So, we're even?
|
|
|
Post by kasso on Jan 23, 2008 7:55:06 GMT -5
Alexander the Great was Illyrian, both from his mother and father side.
|
|
|
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 BibleRiot on Jan 23, 2008 10:27:23 GMT -5
Yep. What the man said. With perhaps one caveat concerning Phillip II's mother's dad. I think I've read somewhere that this Irras (father of Eurydice) was an Illyrian in the sense that the Lynkestians and of course the Epirots were not. Interesting article on the confusing various Eurydices here : www.ems.name/studies%20on%20macedonia/keramopoulos.pdf I'd be interested to hear BBB's take on it.
|
|
|
Post by kasso on Jan 23, 2008 10:55:04 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.
|
|
|
Post by Niklianos on Jan 23, 2008 19:46:48 GMT -5
Kasso,
we are still waiting for the list.
Also your trying to prove that the Epirotes were Illyrian holds no water. In the Periplous of Pseudo-Skylax there is a CLEAR and concise division between Illyrians and Epirots.
Of course like anywhere in the world there would be some admixture along the border regions. But those admixtures are so minimal that they would not constitute a change in ethnicity or culture. The only language known to be spoken in Epirus is GREEK.
I really wonder why all those Epirot leaders had Greek names, Epirus is a Greek name and why all the inscriptions found in Ancient Epirus are in their entirety Greek?
I have no problem with you calling yourselves the descendants of Illyrians what I have a problem with is claiming anyone along your borders as Illyrian and or Albanian.
If you know of any other language and gods the Epirots spoke please present it.
|
|
|
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.
|
|