|
Post by Arxileas on Nov 23, 2007 21:14:31 GMT -5
Ok, let's continue with antique authors. Herodotus: LVIII. But the Hellenic stock, it seems clear to me, has always had the same language since its beginning;
So, Hellenic stock had the same language since its beginning
....yet being, when separated from the Pelasgians,
OK, so they were same stock and separated...
few in number, they have grown from a small beginning to comprise a multitude of nations, chiefly because the Pelasgians and many other foreign peoples united themselves with them. Before that, I think, the Pelasgic stock nowhere increased much in number while it was of foreign speech. I need an interpretation here! Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War II. For instance, it is evident that the country now called Hellas had in ancient times no settled population; on the contrary, migrations were of frequent occurrence, the several tribes readily abandoning their homes under the pressure of superior numbers. [2] Without commerce, without freedom of communication either by land or sea, cultivating no more of their territory than the exigencies of life required, destitute of capital, never planting their land (for they could not tell when an invader might not come and take it all away, and when he did come they had no walls to stop him), thinking that the necessities of daily sustenance could be supplied at one place as well as another, they cared little for shifting their habitation, and consequently neither built large cities nor attained to any other form of greatness. He continues: [6] And here is no inconsiderable exemplification of I disagreeertion, that the migrations were the cause of there being no correspondent growth in other parts. The most powerful victims of war or faction from the rest of Hellas took refuge with the Athenians as a safe retreat; and at an early period, becoming naturalized, swelled the already large population of the city to such a height that Attica became at last too small to hold them, and they had to send out colonies to Ionia. Before the Trojan war there is no indication of any common action in Hellas, [2] nor indeed of the universal prevalence of the name; on the contrary, before the time of Hellen, son of Deucalion, no such appellation existed, but the country went by the names of the different tribes, in particular of the Pelasgian. It was not till Hellen and his sons grew strong in Phthiotis, and were invited as allies into the other cities, that one by one they gradually acquired from the connection the name of Hellenes; though a long time elapsed before that name could fasten itself upon all. [3] The best proof of this is furnished by Homer. Born long after the Trojan war, he nowhere calls all of them by that name, nor indeed any of them except the followers of Achilles from Phthiotis, who were the original Hellenes: in his poems they are called Danaans, Argives, and Achaeans. He does not even use the term barbarian, probably because the Hellenes had not yet been marked off from the rest of the world by one distinctive appellation. [4] It appears therefore that the several Hellenic communities, comprising not only those who first acquired the name, city by city, as they came to understand each other, but also those who assumed it afterwards as the name of the whole people, were before the Trojan war prevented by their want of strength and the absence of mutual intercourse from displaying any collective action. Indeed, they could not unite for this expedition till they had gained increased familiarity with the sea. 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.” When were Greeks (Acheans, as Homer uses it) established in the upper Danube? tueta I have refuted albhoney to which she, he or it asked the same thing, now your gonna tell me you missed that ? Why do you avoid real debate by ignoring real historians and use FYROMians arguments. Am waiting for you to explain why you left out the rest of the parts of what those same historians actually said. Or are you having a hard time understanding ? In my eyes none can continue a debate by ignoring others posted facts and force their views still whilst their claims have been smashed. Make any sense to you ?
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on Nov 23, 2007 21:17:40 GMT -5
Here it is again.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 Niklianos on Nov 23, 2007 22:53:07 GMT -5
That the term "barbarian" had a dual meaning. Aside from meaning "non-Hellenic," the term "barbarian" has been used by Greek tribes/city-states to deride other Greek tribes/city-states that were deemed unsophisticated in their use of the Hellenic language/culture (Foreigners and Barbarians). When Demosthenes of Athens attacked Philip II of Macedon, in the Third Philippic, Demosthenes deemed the Macedonians as non-Hellenic, unrelated to the Hellenes, and not even worthy of being deemed as "barbarians." The utilization of the term in many ancient Greek accounts is representative of the competition that existed among various Greek city-states, tribes, and civilizations. ( We told you Phillip and Alexander WERE NOT CONSIDERED GREEK OR EVEN A GREEK TRIBE by Demosthenes and most of southern Greeks. ) From the dual meaning of the term "barbarian", some propose that when Herodotus deemed the Pelasgians as "barbaric", he did not imply that they were non-Hellenes. In support of this interpretation, these theorists point to the passage where Herodotus deems the Hellenes a branch of the Pelasgians (Herodotus on the Pelasgians and the Early Hellenes). Herodotus 1.57 concludes that the Athenians "changed language" when they "joined the Hellenic body"; but this may be open to different interpretations. Herodotus also tells of a war in which the Athenians expelled the Pelasgians from Attica to Lemnos. Yet, Herodotus is known for not distinguishing the difference between dialects and languages that are completely separate (Herodotus' Conception of Foreign Languages). As a result of the ambiguity of Herodotus in distinguishing languages from dialects, one can propose that the language of the Pelasgians was a "barbaric" (or unsophisticated) form of Hellenic as opposed to it being non-Hellenic. Albanesehoney are you even reading the same thing I am? Nowhere does the article you posted support the Ancient Macedonians being considered non-Greek! In fact it is quite the opposite. Case in point from your own posting: When Demosthenes of Athens attacked Philip II of Macedon, in the Third Philippic, Demosthenes deemed the Macedonians as non-Hellenic, unrelated to the Hellenes, and not even worthy of being deemed as "barbarians." The utilization of the term in many ancient Greek accounts is representative of the competition that existed among various Greek city-states, tribes, and civilizations. Does this in any way state or imply that the author believes the Ancient Macedonians were non-Greek OR does it mean that Philip was only called 'Barbarian' due to the competition between Athens and Macedonia.(Meaning un-civilized as from your own post.)?? That the term "barbarian" had a dual meaning. Aside from meaning "non-Hellenic," the term "barbarian" has been used by Greek tribes/city-states to deride other Greek tribes/city-states that were deemed unsophisticated in their use of the Hellenic language/culture (Foreigners and Barbarians). You are really confusing me with what you are trying to claim with your post.
|
|
|
Post by Niklianos on Nov 23, 2007 23:01:40 GMT -5
What does this have to do with Albanians...? Nermin Vlora Falaschi published a translation of the Lemnos stele on this basis, with the help of Arvanite Albanian. The references below by Falaschi, Catapano, Marchiano, Mathieu Aref, Faverial, D'Angely, Kolias, and Cabej support this point of view. www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/History/Pelasgian.htmlbooks.google.com/books?id=-TF6VR7Mth8C&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=pelasgian+stele+of+lemnos&source=web&ots=O6Pqu_g0Jo&sig=-0CFWgWUTX59nOoP5GIn7H9jrzsStele of Lemnos Pelasgian Albanian English This entire bustrophedic registration, where the letters “TH” and “H” can be read continuously, in order to represent sighs and sobs, as we would today make “AH” and “OH”, contains tormenting complains funeral, obviously for the dead person that had been also a great hero, like demonstrates to the repeated pride of all the relationship. We rewrite our Stele in a melted shape adapting it to the modern era: “MOURNING, we are in full mourning, anguish, ill luck all over, women covered with black veils. Grief you have given to the kinship, oh kinsman! He belongs to our stock, Ah! , Oh! He was torn away from us, what misfortune. But in order which guilt, this disaster? Gelid is his golden throne, Ah! Of his fame we were proud, Oh! Grief, grief in the whole world, tearing him away, we are beheaded! This grief struck us suddently, ah! Alas, who knows for what fault? Oh! Our kinsman he was, Why ever did he struck us with such grief? In Grief and despair, ah! tears choke us, Oh! He, who kept up our stock, for what fault, now does he extinguish it? Ah! Oh! Oh! precious he was, knife wounds, oh misfortune, he suffered so much! In Silence, never uttering an insult! Ah! Oh! You, kinsman, you have beheaded us, Oh! You, great affliction you have given us, Ah! Oh!” This is what has to do with Albanian. Can you please provide a source for how she arrived using the Greek letters on the Lesbos Stelae to represent Pelasgian and Arvanite instead of Greek? To me all the letters look like Ancient Greek! From what I have always learned about the Pelasgic language the only believed words are all in the Greek language since ancient times and are among the following types; words with consonantal "nth" such as in "Corinth" or words with "tt" ,"ns" and "ss" such as : Thallassa, Parnassus, Larissa, Tiryns, Hymettus and Attica. So from what is known of 'believed' Pelasgic words how do they make a connection with Albanian or even Illyrian and Arvanite?
|
|
|
Post by Teuta1975 on Nov 23, 2007 23:24:14 GMT -5
I am quoting most of the passage from Herodotus; check out your quotation from him: is only one line!
PS as for the rest, read the book; there is plenty for Greeks written. I am not talking about new and modern theories; antique ones are perfect;
|
|
|
Post by albanesehoney on Nov 24, 2007 0:04:32 GMT -5
"Albanesehoney are you even reading the same thing I am? Nowhere does the article you posted support the Ancient Macedonians being considered non-Greek! In fact it is quite the opposite. Case in point from your own posting: "
Yesterday at 9:27pm, albanesehoney wrote: When Demosthenes of Athens attacked Philip II of Macedon, in the Third Philippic, Demosthenes deemed the Macedonians as non-Hellenic, unrelated to the Hellenes, and not even worthy of being deemed as "barbarians." The utilization of the term in many ancient Greek accounts is representative of the competition that existed among various Greek city-states, tribes, and civilizations.
"Does this in any way state or imply that the author believes the Ancient Macedonians were non-Greek OR does it mean that Philip was only called 'Barbarian' due to the competition between Athens and Macedonia.(Meaning un-civilized as from your own post.)?? "
The author...writer of this treatise is not making a judgment call on what Demosthenes meant about his feelings for the Macedonians. He is offering up a bunch of THEORIES about who and what the Barbarians were, when Herodotus/Homer/Thucyd. started using the term for all "foreign non Hellenic speaking peoples. Epirus, Macedonia, the Enhileneans, Trojans, Larrissans, practically all NON Athenians were mentioned one time or another as NON HELLENIC speaking peoples, Linear A, Stele of Lemnos were not of Hellenic speaking peoples and even Linear B was only connected to the Ancient WESTERN Greek found in Dodona/official religious seat of Pelasgian worship.
Whatever he actually meant, Demosthenes knew Phillip and ALexander were on their way to conquering the southern Greeks/Hellenes and he called them out as Barbarians, Non Hellenic, NON Hellenic speaking, unworthy of being called even Barbarians of the north. Competition between the two states was not just in the area of sports. Demosthenes knew that Macedonians had their designs on taking the whole southern Pelops under their control, which meant Athenians were no longer 'Freemen" and which Macedonians eventually accomplished during Demosthenes' lifetime. He died within a year of Alexander's death, so he was quite aware of the Macedonian influence and control over his 'city state' of Athens.
Yesterday at 9:27pm, albanesehoney wrote: That the term "barbarian" had a dual meaning. Aside from meaning "non-Hellenic," the term "barbarian" has been used by Greek tribes/city-states to deride other Greek tribes/city-states that were deemed unsophisticated in their use of the Hellenic language/culture (Foreigners and Barbarians).
"You are really confusing me with what you are trying to claim with your post. "
Why? This one is the easiest to understand..Barbarian was used to call all other groups not speaking Hellenic Greek as unsophisticated or FOREIGN...non Athenian. Which practically puts all non Athenians in that grab bag of ancient peoples.
Whatever you think, this reference was only put here to show how wide the controversy over this Lemnos Stele and who the Pelasgians were. Both in the handed down questionable versions of ancient historians down to modern and current historians.
Because of this disagreement, there is NO definitive proof that Greeks are of Pelasgian origin, as much as Albanian can call on this same proof.
|
|
|
Post by albanesehoney on Nov 24, 2007 0:08:52 GMT -5
tueta I have refuted albhoney ? You have refuted nothing. Get your sources right, or at least have the decency to read what you post. None of what you posted gave up an PROOF that Albanians were NOT of the Balkan area and PROOF that they came from somewhere else. So, if you like looking like our prized shaka, continue with your infantile 'reposts' of authors who can only ruminate on their homoerotic Greek fantasies without giving readers the juice of PROOF that what they claim is based on reproducible conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Niklianos on Nov 24, 2007 0:42:39 GMT -5
Albhoney,
that tablet you posted is not of Linear A but one of the Late Archaic-Classical Greek alphabets. Look up Linear A and see for yourself.
I am confused because Barbarian had 2 meanings and that is the point being made by the author. The definition of 'Barbarian' is not THEORY but fact. 1) Non-Greek 2)Uncivilized, which included other Greeks. The Athenians even called the Spartans as barbarian. Does that mean the Spartans were not Greek?
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,587
|
Post by Kanaris on Nov 24, 2007 1:27:47 GMT -5
Stop bulcrapping I didn't touch nothing ...your account is intact... you're just a lying piece of chit... and you're trying in your own pathetic low life way of portraying something that is not... grow up .... for fuks sake...
|
|
|
Post by albanesehoney on Nov 24, 2007 1:35:25 GMT -5
I was barred before from posting a long one on another thread. I wrote to Admin to unlock my account. I couldn't get in til now and I'm not lying. My posts would have gone through if my account was not blocked for around 30 minutes. You know, you don't have to use foul terms in addressing people. It's really unbecoming of an admin person. It really makes you look what you called me or others in your other posts.
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,587
|
Post by Kanaris on Nov 24, 2007 12:22:34 GMT -5
It's simple I cannot stand fakes.
|
|
|
Post by leandros nikon on Nov 24, 2007 13:54:22 GMT -5
lemnos stele isnt albanian,just bcz it's turkish... ;D www.compmore.net/~tntr/lemstelea.htmlREADING OF THE LEMNOS ISLAND INSCRIPTION (A preliminary report) (Part 1 of 3) By POLAT KAYA, M. Sc. E. E.
|
|
|
Post by leandros nikon on Nov 24, 2007 13:57:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by leandros nikon on Nov 24, 2007 14:03:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by albanesehoney on Nov 24, 2007 14:24:50 GMT -5
OH! ok, I thought for a second you said Greeks were Pelasgians...lolol ;D Im sure it made you reading it. Glad you like the sites.
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on Nov 24, 2007 19:56:37 GMT -5
I am quoting most of the passage from Herodotus; check out your quotation from him: is only one line! PS as for the rest, read the book; there is plenty for Greeks written. I am not talking about new and modern theories; antique ones are perfect; Exactly just one line, BUT you ignore the rest. hardly enough proof to warrant such propagandistic topics you have posted lately teuta. If your gonna post an argument please have those facts to back them up, which they do not exist only in the minds of the dreamers of the Great Albania. To which you have openly admitted that you are one of those dreamers at net54. But you know what your own historians say right ? Even your connections with the Illyarians are questionable, some missing millenniums 2000 plus. It's nice to dream, off course people love to study ancient Greek BUT to re-word it like you have been caught out before is hardly the way to go on about it, history belongs to those who have created it. In this case the Greeks. Palasgians assimilated with the rest of the 200 plus Hellenic tribes.
|
|
|
Post by albanesehoney on Nov 24, 2007 20:14:44 GMT -5
[ Palasgians assimilated with the rest of the 200 plus Hellenic tribes. Didn't you say the Pelasgians were the Aboriginies of the Agean and that Hellenes were a tribe descending from them? If what you say is true, then it makes sense that Greeks did come from the caucasus-indo european and were not autochonous to this land. Could you please make up your mind.
|
|
|
Post by Niklianos on Nov 24, 2007 22:32:32 GMT -5
The Greek wer not known as Greeks during the late 2nd Millenia but known by their tribes. The one thing they had in common was the worship of the same gods and probably even different dialects of the same Ancient language. Greek at the time of Herodotus was much different from that of Mycenae and so on. So it is most likely since the various greek tribes that existed in the Balkan peninsula were the only people who inhabited it during the late bronze age then it makes perfect sense that the later Greeks of the Archaic and Classical periods were an admixture of all the Groups living on the peninsula including the Pelasgians. Now when it comes to the Pelasgians and the Illyrians there is no connection. The Pelasgians did not even live in the same area where the Illyrian later reigned.
So yes according to the available archaeology and historical sources the Greeks have the strongest claim as to being the descendants of the Pelasgians.
|
|
|
Post by Teuta1975 on Nov 24, 2007 22:49:14 GMT -5
Because in those passages is written for the other tribes! I am a dreamer of Greater Albania? Because I am quoting Herodotus??? I don't have any problem if Albania is big or small!!! But I DO have a problem when people say: there is NOT! I have also noted some bizarre comments (only by your part?! Can you recall?) of what you're labeling me, is only the opposite: Big Greece!
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on Nov 24, 2007 23:00:17 GMT -5
Because in those passages is written for the other tribes! I am a dreamer of Greater Albania? Because I am quoting Herodotus??? I don't have any problem if Albania is big or small!!! But I DO have a problem when people say: there is NOT! I have also noted some bizarre comments (only by your part?! Can you recall?) of what you're labeling me, is only the opposite: Big Greece! Again ! re-read what Herodotus had to say allllll of them lol. One liner isn't enough. I've said it before the Greater Greece is ancient history it stopped when we lost to the Turks in 1922? when the powers then stopped backing us, we came as close as to 45 km from Ankara Oh Turkey would not exist today. Had we succeeded Greece doesn't have Greater plans here. Greater Albania is around us and it will cease due to many reasons. It'll fail for many reasons, Albania picks wrong allies every time. There is NO evidence to suggest what you're claiming "Albanian connection" It's safer to claim what you can prove already and that is very recent.
|
|