|
Post by Teuta1975 on Nov 20, 2007 0:02:12 GMT -5
CXXXVII. Miltiades son of Cimon took possession of Lemnos in this way: When the Pelasgians were driven out of Attica by the Athenians, whether justly or unjustly I cannot say, beyond what is told; namely, that Hecataeus the son of Hegesandrus declares in his history that the act was unjust; [2] for when the Athenians saw the land under Hymettus, formerly theirs, which they had given to the Pelasgians as a dwelling-place in reward for the wall that had once been built around the acropolis--when the Athenians saw how well this place was tilled which previously had been bad and worthless, they were envious and coveted the land, and so drove the Pelasgians out on this and no other pretext. But the Athenians themselves say that their reason for expelling the Pelasgians was just. [3] The Pelasgians set out from their settlement at the foot of Hymettus and wronged the Athenians in this way: Neither the Athenians nor any other Hellenes had servants yet at that time, and their sons and daughters used to go to the Nine Wells2 for water; and whenever they came, the Pelasgians maltreated them out of mere arrogance and pride. And this was not enough for them; finally they were caught in the act of planning to attack Athens. [4] The Athenians were much better men than the Pelasgians, since when they could have killed them, caught plotting as they were, they would not so do, but ordered them out of the country. The Pelasgians departed and took possession of Lemnos, besides other places. This is the Athenian story; the other is told by Hecataeus CXXXVIII. These Pelasgians dwelt at that time in Lemnos and desired vengeance on the Athenians. Since they well knew the time of the Athenian festivals, they acquired fifty-oared ships and set an ambush for the Athenian women celebrating the festival of Artemis at Brauron. They seized many of the women, then sailed away with them and brought them to Lemnos to be their concubines. [2] These women bore more and more children, and they taught their sons the speech of Attica and Athenian manners. These boys would not mix with the sons of the Pelasgian women; if one of them was beaten by one of the others, they would all run to his aid and help each other; these boys even claimed to rule the others, and were much stronger. [3] When the Pelasgians perceived this, they took counsel together; it troubled them much in their deliberations to think what the boys would do when they grew to manhood, if they were resolved to help each other against the sons of the lawful wives and attempted to rule them already. [4] Thereupon the Pelasgians resolved to kill the sons of the Attic women; they did this, and then killed the boys' mothers also. From this deed and the earlier one which was done by the women when they killed their own husbands who were Thoas' companions, a “Lemnian crime” has been a proverb in Hellas for any deed of cruelty. CXXXIX. But when the Pelasgians had murdered their own sons and women, their land brought forth no fruit, nor did their wives and their flocks and herds bear offspring as before. Crushed by hunger and childlessness, they sent to Delphi to ask for some release from their present ills. [2] The Pythian priestess ordered them to pay the Athenians whatever penalty the Athenians themselves judged. The Pelasgians went to Athens and offered to pay the penalty for all their wrongdoing. [3] The Athenians set in their town-hall a couch adorned as finely as possible, and placed beside it a table covered with all manner of good things, then ordered the Pelasgians to deliver their land to them in the same condition. [4] The Pelasgians answered, “We will deliver it when a ship with a north wind accomplishes the voyage from your country to ours in one day”; they supposed that this was impossible, since Attica is far to the south of Lemnos. CXL. At the time that was all. But a great many years later, when the Chersonese on the Hellespont was made subject to Athens, Miltiades son of Cimon accomplished the voyage from Elaeus on the Chersonese to Lemnos with the Etesian1 winds then constantly blowing; he proclaimed that the Pelasgians must leave their island, reminding them of the oracle which the Pelasgians thought would never be fulfilled. [2] The Hephaestians obeyed, but the Myrinaeans would not agree that the Chersonese was Attica and were besieged, until they too submitted. Thus did Miltiades and the Athenians take possession of Lemnos.
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,587
|
Post by Kanaris on Nov 20, 2007 0:07:28 GMT -5
Everyone wanted a piece of the Athenians... the Spartans,the Messinians...the Acheans.... the Macedonians... the Trojans... etc ect Greek tribes were always at each others throats..
|
|
|
Post by Teuta1975 on Nov 20, 2007 0:12:50 GMT -5
Were Troyans Greeks?
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,587
|
Post by Kanaris on Nov 20, 2007 0:26:30 GMT -5
Same customs,same language..... has anyone proved yet that they were talking another tonque?
|
|
|
Post by Teuta1975 on Nov 20, 2007 0:40:55 GMT -5
Because the lliad was written in Ancient Greek and all the names of the persons and gods were Greek names, many people think that the Trojans and the Greeks were the same people and they spoke the same people and they spoke the same language. The abundance of the Mycenaean type of ceramics which were found during the excavations also strengthens this opinion. But according to the latest research of linguists, the Trojans spoke an Indo-European language which was widely spoken in different part of Anatolia, called Luvian.
Prof. Calvert Watkins, a specialist in Indo-European languages, explains the abundance of Mycenaean ceramics as due to trade and claims that during this trade two different languages were used. It is clearly understood from the lliad that the Trojans had a close relationship with the Greeks. Equally they had similar relationships with the Hittites as well. As a matter of fact there is a resemblance between the marriage traditions of the Trojans and the Hittites. For example: According to a Hittite law "if a man has a wife and the man dies, his brother takes his wife". Take Trojans had exactly the same law. The legend tells us that after the death of Paris his brother Deiphobos married Helen.
Obviously the Trojans had connections both with east and west. But who were thay? It would probably be easier to answer this question if a few written tablets had been unearthed during the excavations. But no tablets have been found so far. However the Hittites in central Anatolia used both Hierogliphics and Cuneiform, around the second millennium B.C. This is why the linguists are searching the Hittite sources and trying to find something about Troy.
At a Symposium held at Bryn Mawr College in October 1984 linguist Prof. Watkins suggests that "Steep Wilusa", a city mentioned on a Hittite tablet which was written in Luvian, could well be "Steep llios" of the lliad. "Priya-Muwas" sounds very much like "Priamos". The Luvian "Aleksandus" may well be "Aleksandros", the second name of the Trojan prince Paris.
How can we ignore these reseblences? Especially if Homer tells us in the lliad that the Trojans and their allies spoke different languages and dialects.
"Hector, I urge you above all to do as I say. In his great city, Priam has many allies. But these foreigners all talk different languages. Let their own captains in each case take charge of them, draw up their countrymen, and lead them into battle.
(lliad II. 800-805)
"...Such was the babel that went up from the great Trojan army, which hailed from many parts, and being without a common language used many different cries and calls.
(lliao IV. 437-439)
That means the Trojans and their allies were certainly not Greek-speaking people. The names of many heroes mentioned in the lliad were local Anatolian names. Those which sound Greek were either adopted or made up. For example "Astyanax", son of Hector, was a Greek name, but Hector would call him "Skamandrias". "Hector" too could well have born a real local Anatolian name.
Although not proved, we shall go on believing that the Trojans were "native people of Anatolia" until archaeologists find tablets in future proving to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by Teuta1975 on Nov 20, 2007 0:48:34 GMT -5
Another scholar....I don't know what to believe anymore... I am considering only the passages of Homer, Herodotus, and Tiberius Claudius!
Most of us are familiar with Homer’s stories the Iliad and the Odyssey; the famous epic of mighty Achilles who was feared by the gods themselves; the pride and jealousy of High King Agamemnon; the beauty of Helen of Troy; the wisdom and cunning of the skillful Odyssey, etc.
A wonderful work of literature, but with all the research conducted for so many years and the enormous amount of funds invested in it, why hasn’t the question, “who were the Trojans” been answered? Since Heinrich Schliemann discovered Troy in 1870, no one has bothered to ask, “what was the ethnicity of the Trojans and who were the Achaeans”?
The assumption all along was that they were “Greek”, but were they? In literature and in the movies, they are represented as Greeks; using Greek weapons, Greek architecture, Greek art, etc. In history books we were told without a doubt that the “Achaeans were actually early Greeks”.
But, has anyone inquired as to how they arrived at this conclusion? Where is the proof that the Achaeans and Trojans actually shared a common heritage with the “Greeks”; language, culture, art, weapons or any other characteristic that would qualify them to be “Greek”?
I don’t believe that anyone can truly say what they really were. But we can, with some certainty, say that they were not Greek.
Allow me to elaborate.
Let us begin with a quote from Tiberius Claudius;
“Among these Celts, if the word is to have any significance, even the ‘Achaean’ Greeks, who had established themselves for some time in the Upper Danube Valley before pushing southward into Greece. Yes, the Greeks are comparative newcomers to Greece. They displaced the native Pelasgians ... This happened not long before the Trojan War; the Dorian Greeks came still later - eighty years after the Trojan War.”
The theory was, according to Herodotus and Homer, that “barbarian” tribes from the north, known as the Dorians, threatened the ancient Achaean cities even before the great (Trojan) war. They say that these tribes came from as far as the Danube River valley.
Modern scholars however have doubts. There is no archeological evidence to support this theory.
According to professor Eugene Borza:
"The theory of Dorian invasions is largely an invention of 19th century historiography, and is otherwise unsupported by either archaeological or linguistic evidence. Most archaeologists and many linguists have abandoned the belief that Greek speaking Dorians devastated Mycenaean centers at the end of the Bronze Age..."
It is my belief that the Achaeans and the Dorians have always lived in Thessaly or on the Ionian coast.
To which language group they belong I can’t say with certainty, but their language nonetheless created a large part of the classical Greek vocabulary. More about that later.
If the Trojan War indeed took place, taking Homer’s word who so eloquently described it, one can conclude that it left the Achaeans and their allies devastated and in a state of weakness. The Trojan War in fact could have been far more devastating than Homer described it. Some scholars believe, mythology aside, it was a war for economic dominance. Troy, the richest city in the known world, presented a threat to the Achaeans because it controlled most of the trade through the Dardanelle pass. Troy had many allies and could have easily taken full control of the pass. Control of the pass would have meant controlling the entire sea trade between the Mediterranean and Black Seas.
The prospect of Troy controlling the pass worried the Achaeans who tried by every means possible to find a solution. Unfortunately, Troy continued to ignore them. Unable to find a peaceful solution, the Achaeans declared war on Troy.
The Achaeans amassed a great army, a size never before seen, and set out for Troy. When they arrived, the Trojans met them before the great walls of their city. The armies clashed and fought endless battles. It was a war of the worlds as each side drew in on its allies. Each side used its genius to outdo the other and many men in great numbers on both sides were killed.
When it was over, the Achaeans returned home victorious. Unfortunately, it was a bitter sweet victory which left them devastated. Many kings and nobles died in the battlefields and many more died at home through sinister plots and intrigues. Even the High King Agamemnon was murdered.
Weakened, leaderless and with a population in decline, the war brought more suffering than it did prosperity. With new and inexperienced leadership, a shortage of men and material, defense from the savage invaders from the north became a serious challenge.
The Pelasgi (Belasci), the ancient settlers of the Balkans, called these new savages from the north, Xellenes (newcomers). They were later named Greeks by the Romans.
The Xellenic tribes of Dorians, arrived on the Peloponnesus eighty years after the Trojan War. They raided the countryside, destroying the rich Achaean culture, cities and enclaves along with the native Achaean population. Their arrival brought dramatic change to the region. They no longer had a High King to rule over all the tribes and cities. Art, architecture and science also changed, modified by the mixing of new cultures; Egyptians, Phoenicians, Xellenes, Pelasgians, Anatolians and others. All these people helped shape Greece to become what it was during the classical period.
We cannot draw conclusions from studying the Achaeans and Trojan cultures alone, we need archeological evidence to corroborate our theories. Based on cultural evidence alone, we can equally assume the Trojans were a Slavic people. According to historian Alexander Donski, if one reads the description of the customs practiced by Trojans as per Homer’s Iliad, without knowing who the Trojans were, one would get the impression that they were the modern Balkan Slavic peoples.
On a side note, many contemporary scholars today believe that the ancient Pelasgi, the inhabitants of the Greek Peninsula, before the classical Greeks, were proto-Slavic. Other ancient Balkan peoples such as the Thracians, Paeonians, Dardanians, Veneti, Bryges, Illyrians, Minoans and people from Asia Minor such as the Lydians, Phrygians, Mysians and even Scythians and Sarmatians (Amazons) are also believed to be proto-Slavic speaking people. Several factors have led scholars this conclusion, art, customs, ancient relics with inscriptions of written languages, etc. Scholars Vasil Ilyov, Sergei V. Rjabchikov, Prof. V. A. Chudinov, Matej Bor, Anthony Ambrozic and others have deciphered many ancient scripts from Phrygian, Venetic, Etruscan, Linear A, ancient Macedonian, Vincha, ancient Russian and other sources with the use of contemporary Slavic languages. In fact a number of so-called undecipherable scripts have now been deciphered and translated by using the Slavic languages, something never seriously done before.
Why didn’t anyone think of using Slavic, the vast family of languages of one of the largest nations on Earth? I believe because of political reasons: communism and all the propaganda surrounding it, not to mention the isolation the Slavic states suffered.
What is also interesting is that contemporary scholar Odisej Belchevsky and others are now studying the language in which Homer wrote the Iliad & Odyssey and are finding that it was written in a proto-Slavic language, closely related to modern Macedonian dialects.
And now back to the Trojans and Achaeans.
It is my belief that the Achaeans did not speak a proto-Slavic language. If their vocabulary contained proto-Slavic words it is most likely they were borrowed from the Pelasgi or other Slavic-speaking tribes. I believe the Achaeans spoke a language that was more closely related to the language family of the later City States, but surely it wasn’t the same as that which was brought from Thessaly by the Dorians.
The Peloponnesus was settled by various peoples. Egyptians (Ethiopians as well), Phoenicians, Libyans (I believe the Sea People), Anatolians (Ionians) and Italics all contributed to the creation of the Mycenaean civilization and ethnicity.
The ancient Greek language (Attic) was less than 50% Indo-European and only 20% of Greek names and toponyms (aside the numerous Slavic ones) were Indo-European. Thus, it is no surprise that scholars classified linear B as Greek, because “Greek” encompasses elements of many languages including Egyptian, Phoenician, Anatolian and others, that don’t belong in the Balkans. In other words, all the languages spoken in the Peloponnesus before the arrival of the “Greek” Dorians.
Even the so-called “Greek gods” have roots in Egypt and elsewhere. I do not believe the inhabitants of ancient City States ever “founded” a god themselves.
It is interesting that some Spartan kings claimed relation to the lords from the Middle East, Egypt and the shrine: pyramid at Menelaion. It is also interesting that the Achaean architecture has a striking resemblance to the Egyptian.
As for the Trojans, we don’t have evidence of their written language (thus far), but we do know that most of their allies were proto-Slavic speaking peoples related to them (Trojans) whose customs are surprisingly very similar to those of the modern Balkan Slavs. According to Anthony Ambrozic and others, the Trojans were related to the Phrygians, whom we know were related to the proto-Slavic Veneti.
I believe more evidence is required to conclusively prove this, but finding it for the time being is beyond the scope of this article.
If my theory is correct, a new chapter in history will soon be written, a chapter that will include the Slav contribution to the world. As Homer puts it (describing the Slav barbarian tribes) in his epic:
“They are numerous like leafs in the forest… with chariots and weapons decorated with gleaming gold and silver… like gods.”
For more details on the subjects covered in this article, consult the works of:
Homer, Herodotus, Anthony Ambrozic, Eugene Borza, Mario Alinei, Vasil Ilyov, Valeriy A. Chudinov, and Sergei V. Rjabchikov.
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on Nov 20, 2007 1:18:39 GMT -5
Yet you miss this important parts of what ancient historians and modern ones say why ? Modern sources on Pelasgians. A History of Greece: From the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest, with Supplementary Chapters .. by Sir William Smith - 1855 p.12-13
The Gentile Nations: Or, the History and Religion of the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians ... By George Smith p.317History of Classical Literature By Robert William Browne p. 40The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC) By Tim J. Cornell p.38The Religions Before Christ: Being an Introduction to the History of the First Three Centuries ... By Edmond de Pressensι p. 66Landmarks of the history of Greece By James White p.21And Some Ancient sources on Pelasgians. Herodotus 1.58 Τὸ δὲ Ἑλληνικὸν γλώσσῃ μέν, ἐπείτε ἐγένετο, αἰεί κοτε τῇ αὐτῇ διαχρᾶται, ὡς ἐμοὶ καταφαίνεται εἶναι. Ἀποσχισθὲν μέντοι ἀπὸ τοῦ Πελασγικοῦ translation: "But the Hellenic stock, it seems clear to me, has always had the same language since its beginning; yet being, when separated from the Pelasgians" Dionysus of Halikarnassos "Roman Antiquities" 1.17.2.1 καὶ τὸ τῶν Πελασγῶν γένος Ἑλληνικὸν ἐκ Πελοποννήσου translation: for the Pelasgians too, were a Hellenic race originally from the Peloponnesus. Euripides ION 589 εἶναί φασι τὰς αὐτόχθονας κλεινὰς Ἀθήνας οὐκ ἐπείσακτον γένος, translation: It is said that the famous Athenians are autochthonous of the land, not a foreign race, All found here; illyria.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=ancientgreece&action=display&thread=1191832639Can you post your sources thanks, because I have seen fake web sites which state Britannica only for it to be a re-worded and editable one.
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on Nov 20, 2007 1:22:22 GMT -5
Further more found by a Greek with the handle user id "Olvios at macedoniaontheweb". Herodotus, The Histories (ed. A. D. Godley)LVI. When he heard these verses, Croesus was pleased with them above all, for he thought that a mule would never be king of the Medes instead of a man, and therefore that he and his posterity would never lose his empire. Then he sought very carefully to discover who the mightiest of the Greeks were, whom he should make his friends. [2] He found by inquiry that the chief peoples were the Lacedaemonians among those of Doric, and the Athenians among those of Ionic stock. These races, Ionian and Dorian, were the foremost in ancient time, the first a Pelasgian and the second a Hellenic people. The Pelasgian race has never yet left its home; the Hellenic has wandered often and far. [3] For in the days of king Deucalion1 it inhabited the land of Phthia, then the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus, in the time of Dorus son of Hellen; driven from this Histiaean country by the Cadmeans, it settled about Pindus in the territory called Macedonian; from there again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where it took the name of Dorian.2 The wanderers among the greek tribes were the Dorians who supposedly invade though in greek tradition they return as heracleids to greece.The ones who had not left like in example the Ionians were called pelasgians and athenians bragged about their autocthony.Dorians gave the new name to the culturaly and consciously though not politicaly united pelasgic nation the hellenes. The dorians being greeks thus pelasgian wandered and finally returned but with a new name the Hellenes.Among all those people of the same nation the most renowned gave this nation their new name - Hellenes. The text above illustrates that the finest of all Greeks were the all the hellenes(dorians) & Ionians(pelasgians).Later the Doric hellene tribe gained more glory and renown and from her all the nation was called "Hellenes". Please note none Greek historians...So thus unbiased...I'll be back on this with more.
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on Nov 20, 2007 4:21:57 GMT -5
Another scholar....I don't know what to believe anymore... I am considering only the passages of Homer, Herodotus, and Tiberius Claudius! Most of us are familiar with Homer’s stories the Iliad and the Odyssey; the famous epic of mighty Achilles who was feared by the gods themselves; the pride and jealousy of High King Agamemnon; the beauty of Helen of Troy; the wisdom and cunning of the skillful Odyssey, etc. A wonderful work of literature, but with all the research conducted for so many years and the enormous amount of funds invested in it, why hasn’t the question, “who were the Trojans” been answered? Since Heinrich Schliemann discovered Troy in 1870, no one has bothered to ask, “what was the ethnicity of the Trojans and who were the Achaeans”? The assumption all along was that they were “Greek”, but were they? In literature and in the movies, they are represented as Greeks; using Greek weapons, Greek architecture, Greek art, etc. In history books we were told without a doubt that the “Achaeans were actually early Greeks”. But, has anyone inquired as to how they arrived at this conclusion? Where is the proof that the Achaeans and Trojans actually shared a common heritage with the “Greeks”; language, culture, art, weapons or any other characteristic that would qualify them to be “Greek”? I don’t believe that anyone can truly say what they really were. But we can, with some certainty, say that they were not Greek. Allow me to elaborate. Let us begin with a quote from Tiberius Claudius; “Among these Celts, if the word is to have any significance, even the ‘Achaean’ Greeks, who had established themselves for some time in the Upper Danube Valley before pushing southward into Greece. Yes, the Greeks are comparative newcomers to Greece. They displaced the native Pelasgians ... This happened not long before the Trojan War; the Dorian Greeks came still later - eighty years after the Trojan War.” The theory was, according to Herodotus and Homer, that “barbarian” tribes from the north, known as the Dorians, threatened the ancient Achaean cities even before the great (Trojan) war. They say that these tribes came from as far as the Danube River valley. Modern scholars however have doubts. There is no archeological evidence to support this theory. According to professor Eugene Borza: "The theory of Dorian invasions is largely an invention of 19th century historiography, and is otherwise unsupported by either archaeological or linguistic evidence. Most archaeologists and many linguists have abandoned the belief that Greek speaking Dorians devastated Mycenaean centers at the end of the Bronze Age..." On a side note, many contemporary scholars today believe that the ancient Pelasgi, the inhabitants of the Greek Peninsula, before the classical Greeks, were proto-Slavic. Other ancient Balkan peoples such as the Thracians, Paeonians, Dardanians, Veneti, Bryges, Illyrians, Minoans and people from Asia Minor such as the Lydians, Phrygians, Mysians and even Scythians and Sarmatians (Amazons) are also believed to be proto-Slavic speaking people. Several factors have led scholars this conclusion, art, customs, ancient relics with inscriptions of written languages, etc. Scholars Vasil Ilyov, Sergei V. Rjabchikov, Prof. V. A. Chudinov, Matej Bor, Anthony Ambrozic[/u][/b] and others have deciphered many ancient scripts from Phrygian, Venetic, Etruscan, Linear A, ancient Macedonian, Vincha, ancient Russian and other sources with the use of contemporary Slavic languages. In fact a number of so-called undecipherable scripts have now been deciphered and translated by using the Slavic languages, something never seriously done before. Why didn’t anyone think of using Slavic, the vast family of languages of one of the largest nations on Earth? I believe because of political reasons: communism and all the propaganda surrounding it, not to mention the isolation the Slavic states suffered. What is also interesting is that contemporary scholar Odisej Belchevsky and others are now studying the language in which Homer wrote the Iliad & Odyssey and are finding that it was written in a proto-Slavic language, closely related to modern Macedonian dialects. And now back to the Trojans and Achaeans. It is my belief that the Achaeans did not speak a proto-Slavic language. If their vocabulary contained proto-Slavic words it is most likely they were borrowed from the Pelasgi or other Slavic-speaking tribes. I believe the Achaeans spoke a language that was more closely related to the language family of the later City States, but surely it wasn’t the same as that which was brought from Thessaly by the Dorians. The Peloponnesus was settled by various peoples. Egyptians (Ethiopians as well), Phoenicians, Libyans (I believe the Sea People), Anatolians (Ionians) and Italics all contributed to the creation of the Mycenaean civilization and ethnicity. The ancient Greek language (Attic) was less than 50% Indo-European and only 20% of Greek names and toponyms (aside the numerous Slavic ones) were Indo-European. Thus, it is no surprise that scholars classified linear B as Greek, because “Greek” encompasses elements of many languages including Egyptian, Phoenician, Anatolian and others, that don’t belong in the Balkans. In other words, all the languages spoken in the Peloponnesus before the arrival of the “Greek” Dorians. Even the so-called “Greek gods” have roots in Egypt and elsewhere. I do not believe the inhabitants of ancient City States ever “founded” a god themselves. It is interesting that some Spartan kings claimed relation to the lords from the Middle East, Egypt and the shrine: pyramid at Menelaion. It is also interesting that the Achaean architecture has a striking resemblance to the Egyptian. As for the Trojans, we don’t have evidence of their written language (thus far), but we do know that most of their allies were proto-Slavic speaking peoples related to them (Trojans) whose customs are surprisingly very similar to those of the modern Balkan Slavs. According to Anthony Ambrozic and others, the Trojans were related to the Phrygians, whom we know were related to the proto-Slavic Veneti. I believe more evidence is required to conclusively prove this, but finding it for the time being is beyond the scope of this article. If my theory is correct, a new chapter in history will soon be written, a chapter that will include the Slav contribution to the world. As Homer puts it (describing the Slav barbarian tribes) in his epic: For more details on the subjects covered in this article, consult the works of: Homer, Herodotus, Anthony Ambrozic, Eugene Borza, Mario Alinei, Vasil Ilyov, Valeriy A. Chudinov, and Sergei V. Rjabchikov. [/quote] teuta I was in a rush before unexpected of course, and i missed these names bellow. Homer, Herodotus, Anthony Ambrozic, Eugene Borza, Mario Alinei, Vasil Ilyov, Valeriy A. Chudinov, and Sergei V. Rjabchikov.They the FYROMian? scholars are not reliable as sources. In fact I or anyone else for that matter cannot take them seriously. Example is Eugene Borza his associated with the FYROMian propaganda machine "haven't taken the time to see the rest but by looking at their names it's obvious. No harm in debating, but please provide reliable and unbiased sources rather then using the FYROMians side of the arguments. Now you know why you've been mistaken as Arafifi teuta before...
|
|
|
Post by greek1234 on Nov 20, 2007 6:28:31 GMT -5
I believe the Pelasgians where a type of proto Greeks who influenced the Greek language and culture. I read once they where one of the four great Mediterranean tribes who colonized southern Europe, the same author stated they were related to the Iberians and among other Southern European people. They helped develope the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations along with the Hittites, Phoenicians, Egyptians and among others. He also stated they had North West African origins.
I also believe the Trojans where a Hellenic people also they shared many common things like language and religion.
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on Nov 20, 2007 6:38:47 GMT -5
Further more I once posted this at net54 and found it. It's in regards to this "barbarian word" """the Athenians, because of their policy of occupying with colonists the lands of those whom they subdued, had a bad reputation with the Hellenes; [Diodoros of Sicily 15.23.4]"""
"""And we decided upon a twofold revolt, from the Hellenes and the Athenians, not to aid the latter in harming the former... " [Thukydides, 3.13; Oration of the Mytilenaians]"""
"""When the Athenians attacked the Hellenes, they, the Plataians... Atticized. [Thukydides, 3.62; Theban Accusations]"""
"""And we decided upon a twofold revolt, from the Hellenes and the Athenians, not to aid the latter in harming the former... " [Thukydides, 3.13; Oration of the Mytilenaians]"""
"""the Lakedaimonians, fearful lest Themistokles should devise some great evil against them and the Hellenes, honoured him with double the numbers of gifts." [Diodoros of Sicily 11.27.3]"""
"""In this year [475 BCE] the Lakedaimonians... were resentful; consequently they were incensed at the Hellenes who had fallen away from them and continued to threaten them with the appropriate punishment." [Diodoros of Sicily 11.50.1]"""
"""In a single battle the Peloponnesians and their allies may be able to defy all the Hellenes, but they can not carry a whole war..." [Thukydides 1.141; Oration of Pericles]"""P.s note pay attention to some which separates the Athenians from the Greeks Does this make them none Greek now ? See the point here is that the word "baberian" and was used as an insult nothing more. The Hellenic tribes consisted some 200 plus at the time and were small city states who were power struggling btw them for supremacy. They were always at war and bickering with each other in ancient times. See above quotes on how they the Athenians look like they aren't part of Hellas...BUT everyone knows very well who the Athenians were "Greeks" of course. BUT no one can mistake the actions of the Dorian Macedonians who united the Hellenic tribes under Philip the seconds leadership...In preparedness for revenge = The Persians.
|
|
rex362
Senior Moderator
Pellazg
PELASGIANILLYROALBANIAN
Posts: 19,058
|
Post by rex362 on Nov 20, 2007 10:58:26 GMT -5
a good read Teuta.....
|
|
|
Post by Niklianos on Nov 20, 2007 21:12:12 GMT -5
Teuta,
much of what Borza wrote was based on pure conjecture and not based on Archaeology. He also wrote before the time of many significant archaeological discoveries that brought to light the Greekness of the Macedonians and the origins of the Greek gods! In linear B tablets there have been found the names of many of the Olympian Gods. Also there is not a single respectable linguist who would ever make the claim that there is Slavic origin words in Bronze Age Greece! The Achaeans were Greeks through and through and the decipherment of Linear B proves it. Furthermore where in the world does Borza get any connection between Proto-Slavic and Pelasgians? The only believed Pelasgian words to be known are in the Greek language such as in the names 'Thalassa/Sea' and other words with double 'ss' and 'tt'.
|
|
|
Post by albanesehoney on Nov 20, 2007 23:41:59 GMT -5
What all of the Greek posters are missing is that all those NON GREEK writers are saying the same thing. The Pelasgian was the ancient NAME of the people who dwelt in the regions of ancient Greece, Western Turkey, and in the Balkans generally. And, the fact that the Hellenes were just another tribe of the Pelasgians, who later grew to dominate the southern Pelops. Dodona in Epirus was Pelasgian in origin and this gave birth to the Ancient Greek worship of Zeus and Apollo. I put to you that Greek is just one part of the Pelasgian Legacy left to Antiquity and any historian worth his name cannot deny the Albanian roots to the same Pelasgian group of tribes, Nation/Ethnicity/Language/customs/religion etc.
"A History of Greece: From the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest, with Supplementary Chapters .. by Sir William Smith - 1855 p.12-13
"The Pelasgians were divided into several tribes, such as the Hellenes, Leleges, and others.."
"The Pelasgians are represented by the Greeks...."
History of Classical Literature By Robert William Browne p. 40
"Doubtless the Pelasgians were a civilized and peaceful race, whilst the Hellenes were a warlike and conquering people; both sprang from one common origin; and their languages were sufficiently similar, so that when the races lived together as conquering and subject people, they were capable of amalgamation, in the process of reconstruction formed the Greek language in the earliest state in which it was applied to literature.' "
However, none of the above writers show the proof that the other Pelasgian tribes were 'amalgamated' into one Hellenic tribe. Because logic tells us that if this were true, the "Greeks" (city states) would not have been at each other's throats and trying to conquer each other if they all came the from ONE seed/ONE root. Also, if it is true that Alexander were ethnically "Greek" or "Hellene", why would the Greeks of the south wage war with him when they knew his goal was to 'spread Helenism" to the barbarians of the east and conquer Persia. Forever settling the question of security for the Greeks and immortality? Right, they waged war because they knew he was NOT an ethnic "Hellene" of the Hellenic tribe of Pelasgia. He was a barbarian of the north in a region called Amadhia. Hardly a Greek or Hellenic term, ancient or modern.
|
|
|
Post by ahristos on Nov 20, 2007 23:46:13 GMT -5
when albs become pelasgians ha ha do you mean that ur original tongue wash greek? hoxjas stories you belive
|
|
|
Post by albanesehoney on Nov 21, 2007 0:08:57 GMT -5
" when albs become pelasgians ha ha do you mean that ur original tongue wash greek? hoxjas stories you belive " No, we know the original tongue of Modern/Ancient Greeks was Pelasgian, what the Albanians STILL speak today.
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on Nov 21, 2007 0:19:32 GMT -5
"A History of Greece: From the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest, with Supplementary Chapters .. by Sir William Smith - 1855 p.12-13 "The Pelasgians were divided into several tribes, such as the Hellenes, Leleges, and others.." "The Pelasgians are represented by the Greeks...." A History of Greece: From the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest, with Supplementary Chapters .. by Sir William Smith - 1855 p.12-13 You mean the same guy who wrote this above ? You left out the rest, how convenient of you...Also found on the first post...Of mine.
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on Nov 21, 2007 0:24:28 GMT -5
Yiasou kapitan ahristo, "ruf ruf"
|
|
|
Post by greek1234 on Nov 21, 2007 0:49:13 GMT -5
The Albanians have nothing to do with the Pelasgians get your facts straight.
"The Albanian language, a hybrid between Illyrian, Thracian, Latin, Slavic, Turkish, and other elements, reflects the ethnically composite origin of the Albanians."
By Carleton Stevens Coon from "The Races of Europe"
|
|
|
Post by albanesehoney on Nov 21, 2007 0:51:16 GMT -5
What's up ARxhilaeous...nothing was left out. This writer u post, still said that Pelasgian formed the basis of both Greek and Latin. Do you understand what he said or do you need me to interpret? As for his last paragraph, that's my question? He needs to prove that the other Pelasgian tribes were became Greek or disappeared. Saying it is farrrrr from being any proof that those other tribes disappeared 'before" the Hellenes came into being. You need to study the quotes you post here and if your citation doesn't provide proof then, we have the right to discount your citation as 'proof' of your point. On one point we agree that Pelasgians formed the basis of Latin and Greek languages but on another, this writer has yet to prove that the other Pelasgians disappeared or became Helenes.
"Albanians have nothing to do with the Pelasgians get your facts straight. "
Right, just like Greeks have nothing to do with Bucephalus, Dodona, Zeus, or Amadhia.
|
|