|
Post by Niklianos on Dec 16, 2007 22:45:08 GMT -5
|
|
rex362
Senior Moderator
Pellazg
PELASGIANILLYROALBANIAN
Posts: 19,058
|
Post by rex362 on Dec 17, 2007 10:40:17 GMT -5
"Enjoy and cry"
that sounds like a biased remark....mmm and coming from a experienced archaeologist as yourself ...
I thought you said their is no being biased/cheating in archeology.....being biased while exploring and writing is a dangerous thing ...
|
|
|
Post by Niklianos on Dec 18, 2007 20:05:12 GMT -5
Since when in the past 20 years have the British done anything PRO Greek? Are you saying there is some king of conspiracy to discredit the Albanians and FYROMs??
Albhoney WHERE does it mention anything about Thracians?? You keep adding the Thracians and Illyrians to the original inhabitants of the Balkans WHY?
Rexy,
there is nothing biased about it the HARD evidence speaks for itself. Actually it used to be believed that the Mycenaean had little to no influence in that area, but through these discoveries it is coming to light that they may have been heavily influential there. Thus the possibility that the inhabitants of Macedonia were Greek speaking even further back than what is claimed by some to be!(5th cent. B.C.E)
|
|
|
Post by Niklianos on Dec 18, 2007 20:17:38 GMT -5
What is meant by pre-Hellenic is the time before the late bronze age when the formation of a distinct Hellenic culture was being created. This means either the ancestors of those who became Greek or those who were not Greek but merged with them. We know that the Greeks were the predominant Ethnic group on the peninsula. So who would be the groups who had any connection the the Pre-Hellenic peoples? If it was the Illyrians, Thracians or the Brygians then they would have CLEARLY stated Pre-Thracian, Pre-Illyrian and so on.
|
|
|
Post by Niklianos on Dec 18, 2007 20:22:55 GMT -5
Thus the possibility that the inhabitants of Macedonia were Greek speaking even further back than what is claimed by some to be!(5th cent. B.C.E) Yeh, keep dreaming Nik. Someday you'll land on your feet. Do you acknowledge that the Mycenaeans spoke Greek? If Yes, then what is so far fetched to believe and accept that if they had a heavy influence on the Macedonian region that the inhabitants of the region may have also spoke Greek?
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,589
|
Post by Kanaris on Dec 18, 2007 23:03:36 GMT -5
There's an itsy bitsy problem there..... there were no Albanians there then...just the Greeks......
|
|
|
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.
|
|