Post by albpaion on Dec 7, 2011 11:32:46 GMT -5
The Southern Illyrians: Epirots
By: Zigur Belaxhiu
Source: www.albpelasgian.com/the-southern-illyrians-epirots.html
Epirus and Epirots, who have had an impressive survival history, have not received adequate scholarly attention. Contemporary historians have treated the subject only superficially, most likely in an attempt not to enter into a controversy with the proponents of the Greek claim that Epirus and Epirots were Greek, a claim which is in total contradiction to the historical sources.
In fact, most of Greek and Roman sources attest to a specific non-Greek ethnic identity for the Epirots. Greek and Roman sources convey abundant information for an assumption that Epirus was the land of a very ancient people and its people was considered ‘barbarian’ (βάρβαρον). These sources allow us to conclude with a tolerable safety that:
• Epirots were ethnically distinct from the Greeks;
• Ancient Greeks perceived the Epirots as being distinct and not part of their ethnos;
• Higher aristocratic strata adapted aspects of Hellenic culture, but overall the populace preserved its non-Hellenic identity.
The Greeks of antiquity had no clear concepts about the peoples north of their territories. If the perception of this variegated barbarian world to the north was imprecise, at the same time, the sources indicate that the Greeks had no difficulty in differentiating themselves from them, finding their language as totally unintelligible, and characterized them as “barbarian” (people that speak a non-Greek language). The Greek geographer, Strabo wrote about the line that separated at one time the Greeks from these “barbarians’:
[7. 7. 1]: Moreover, the barbarian origin of some is indicated by their names—Cecrops, Godrus, Aïclus, Cothus, Drymas, and Crinacus. And even to the present day the Thracians, Illyrians, and Epeirotes live on the flanks of the Greeks (though this was still more the case formerly than now); indeed most of the country that at the present time is indisputably Greece is held by the barbarians—Macedonia and certain parts of Thessaly by the Thracians, and the parts above Acarnania and Aetolia by the Thesproti, the Cassopaei, the Amphilochi, the Molossi, and the Athamanes—Epeirotic tribes.
[7. 7. 1]: καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ὀνομάτων δὲ ἐνίων τὸ βάρβαρον ἐμφαίνεται, Κέκροψ καὶ Κόδρος καὶ Ἄικλος καὶ Κόθος καὶ Δρύμας καὶ Κρίνακος. οἱ δὲ Θρᾷκες καὶ Ἰλλυριοὶ καὶ Ἠπειρῶται καὶ μέχρι νῦν ἐν πλευραῖς εἰσιν• ἔτι μέντοι μᾶλλον πρότερον ἢ νῦν, ὅπου γε καὶ τῆς ἐν τῷ παρόντι Ἑλλάδος ἀναντιλέκτως οὔσης τὴν πολλὴν οἱ βάρβαροι ἔχουσι, Μακεδονίαν μὲν Θρᾷκες καί τινα μέρη τῆς Θετταλίας, Ἀκαρνανίας δὲ καὶ Αἰτωλίας τὰ ἄνω Θεσπρωτοὶ καὶ Κασσωπαῖοι καὶ Ἀμφίλοχοι καὶ Μολοττοὶ καὶ Ἀθαμᾶνες, Ἠπειρωτικὰ ἔθνη.
The meaning of the term “barbarian” was fluid, but in most of the cases, the term, used with identical meaning for Illyrians, Epirots, Macedonians, Dacians and Thracians, implied an ethno-cultural identity which differed fundamentally from that of Greek. Thucydides and Strabo distinguished clearly Epirots from the Greeks.
Only two of Thucydides' (2.80) northern chieftains have Greek names and many Epirote tribes did not speak Greek (Strabo 7.7.1) (Grant 1988). Thucydides [2.68] would also distinguish the local population from Greek colonizers who were culturally impacting the local population. Talking about how Amphilochia became “Hellenized”, he indicated that the Argive hero Amphilochus founded Amphilochian Argos, a city within a barbarian land (Amphilochia) which became “hellenized as to the language they now have” (hellenisthesan ten nun glossan) from association with Ambraciots brought in by its inhabitants as additional colonizers.
Hammond (1967: 419-20) suggests the Argives only switched dialect and that the other ‘barbarian’ Amphilochians spoke an uncouth form of Greek. This is certainly not what Thucydides says (Hornblower 1991). Gomme (1956) inferred that Amphilochus was a barbarian.
Proponents of the thesis that Epirots were Greek point to the fact that in epigraphical sources most of the names are Greek. But this is not an adequate or a consequential reason. History is full of examples of people adapting cultural aspects of neighboring peoples. It has been ascertained that Epirus received Hellenic influence from the Elean colonies in Cassopaea and the Corinthian colonies at Ambracia and Corcyra (Hornblower 1996). Herodotus is more specific about this phenomenon. He indicated that when Dorians settled in Peloponnesus, they took upon themselves to do away with differences with the local population, they even Hellenized their tribal names. Here is how Herodotus puts it:
[Book V, 68]: “Thus he had done to Adrastos; and he also changed the names of the Dorian tribes, in order that the Sikyonians might not have the same tribes as the Argives; in which matter he showed great contempt of the Sikyonians, for the names he gave were taken from the names of a pig and an ass by changing only the endings”.
[V, 68]: ταῦτα μὲν ἐς Ἄδρηστόν οἱ ἐπεποίητο, φυλὰς δὲ τὰς Δωριέων, ἵνα δὴ μὴ αἱ αὐταὶ ἔωσι τοῖσι Σικυωνίοισι καὶ τοῖσι Ἀργείοισι, μετέβαλε ἐς ἄλλα οὐνόματα. ἔνθα καὶ πλεῖστον κατεγέλασε τῶν Σικυωνίων· ἐπὶ γὰρ ὑός τε καὶ ὄνου τὰς ἐπωνυμίας μετατιθεὶς αὐτὰ τὰ τελευταῖα ἐπέθηκε, πλὴν τῆς ἑωυτοῦ φυλῆς· ταύτῃ δὲ τὸ οὔνομα ἀπὸ τῆς ἑωυτοῦ ἀρχῆς ἔθετο .
In fact a preponderance of sources from ancient authors distinguished the Epirots from the Greeks. At same the same time the sources point to no such distinction between the Epirots and the Illyrians. This prompted William Ridgeway to suggest that ‘there was no sharp line between the speech of Illyrians and Thesprotians or Thessalians’ (1901: 352).
In reality, ancient authors never use to ascribe a Greek identity to all Epirots in general. Indeed, some ancient Greek authors tried to portray only the ruling elite of Epirots as being Greek. As for the Greek cultural elements that characterized some in this elite, there is abundant sources that points to their late introduction in Epirus.
M. P. Nilsson would note that “during the fifth century BC the Epirots were drawn into Greek politics and began to be Hellenized” (1986: 105). A high point of this tendency was reached as Epirots under Pyrrhus, thanks to their military capability, extended their power beyond Epirus into the disrupted Greek world. And to legitimize their expansionist policies, they invented geneaelogical lines attributable to their ‘Greek origin’. The genealogy of their royal house was carried back into the Greek mythical age. According to Nilsson, the creation of these myths signified an ‘overdone eagerness of a barbarian house to appear as heroic Greeks’ (1986: 108). But even after the higher strata of the society had adapted Hellenic cultural aspects, in general, Epirots were never accepted as authentic Greeks.
Even proponents of the ‘Greekness’ of Epirus see Epirots as having a ‘barbarian’ origin but they explain that this was due to their primitive and backward way of life. At the same time, some of these historians are forced to account for a non-Greek element in Epirus. Robert Browning indicates:
‘The language of the Epirotes is repeatedly described in antiquity as non-Greek (Thucydides 1.47, 1.51, 2.80, Strabo, 8.1.3). Yet the Epirotes were connected with the origin of various Greek communities’ (1983: 2).
There may well have been an ethnic and linguistic mixture in Epirus, some tribes speaking Greek, others Illyrian or some other language (cf. Hammond (1967: 423); Katičić (1976: 120-7).
Being more precise, if Epirots were connected with, say Pelasgians or Dorians, that does not make them Greeks, to the contrary this would indicates how different from the Greeks they were; and if there was any ethnic and linguistic mixture, it had to have come late in history, with the establishment of Greek colonies and various interactions between the two peoples.
King Tharypa who in his early years was educated in Athens, on his return to Molossia introduced among the Molottians, Greek forms, Greek manners, and the language of Greece as far as he could, for his power, like that of all other Molottian kings, was very limited. In his ‘Life of Pyrrhus’, Plutarch relates the historical tradition that attributed to Tharypas responsibility for introducing Greek customs, laws and letters to the cities of Molossia. The late Roman epitomist Justin claims that Tharyps ‘primus itaque leges et senatum annuosque magistratus….composuit’ (first set up laws, the senate and annual magistracies).
Import of Hellenic culture is not unique to Epirus. Parthian kings also pretended to be champions of Hellenism. From the reign of Artabanus I. (128/7-123 B.C.) they bear the epithet of ‘Philhellen’ as a regular part of their title upon the coins. That the Parthian court itself was to some extent Hellenized is shown by the story, often adduced, that a Greek company of actors was performing the Bacchae before the king when the head of Crassus was brought in. This single instance need not, it is true, show a Hellenism of any profundity; still it does show that certain parts of Hellenism had become so essential to the lustre of a court that even an Arsacid could not be without them. Artavasdes, king of Armenia (54?-34 B.C.) composed Greek tragedies and histories (Plut. Crass. 33)”.
For some historians, the imported cultural attributes were a good enough reason to prove that Epirotes were Greek, even assume that they were Greek even from the outset. Logically, if Epirotes had been Greek, why would they, for example, had to coin their genealogical lineage to show their ‘Greekness’?
Hellenism abetted since the time of King Tharypa has to be seen in a wider context to understand its nature and scope. It was a cultural force that proved advantageous to adapt to, especially for the higher social strata. But becoming part of Hellenic world would not be easy with inherited contradiction. N. G. L. Hammond asserts that mythical foundations were being laid for the entry of the Epirotes and the Macedonians into the Greek world (1967).
Ethnicity could be proved or challenged by inventing genealogies and mythical precedents. Euripides wrote propagandist plays for such peoples as the Macedonians (Archelaus) and probably the Molossians (Andromache), and brings to light the claims of mythical origins and genealogical manipulation to Hellenicity, when their detractors in the Greek world insisted that they were barbarians (Hall 1992).
As historical sources indicate, only the higher strata of society saw it to their advantage to put forth such claims. Elizabeth Donnelly Carney indicated that ‘The degree of Hellenization of Molossia outside the royal family is debatable’ (2006: 140). In reality, there is enough evidence to conclude that the general populace preserved its ethnic individuality and Hellenism did not make much an inroad.
Nationalist Greek historians wantingly misinterpreted a fragment from Herodotus, where a Molossian nobleman is presented in midst of “Greeks” who competed to take for wife Agariste. For the sake of authenticity, I will present the whole text:
[126]: For Cleisthenes the son of Arisonymos, the son of Myron, the son of Andreas, had a daughter whose name was Agariste; and as to her he formed a desire to find out the best man of all the Hellenes and to assign her to him in marriage. So when the Olympic games were being held and Cleisthenes was victor in them with a four- horse chariot, he caused a proclamation to be made, that whosoever of the Hellenes thought himself worthy to be the son-in-law of Cleisthenes should come on the sixtieth day, or before that if he would, to Sikyon; for Cleisthenes intended to conclude the marriage within a year, reckoning from the sixtieth day. Then all those of the Hellenes who had pride either in themselves or in their high descent, came as wooers, and for them Cleisthenes had a running- course and a wrestling-place made and kept them expressly for their use.
[126]: Κλεισθένεϊ γὰρ τῷ Ἀριστωνύμου τοῦ Μύρωνος τοῦ Ἀνδρέω γίνεται θυγάτηρ τῇ οὔνομα ἦν Ἀγαρίστη. ταύτην ἠθέλησε, Ἑλλήνων ἁπάντων ἐξευρὼν τὸν ἄριστον, τούτῳ γυναῖκα προσθεῖναι. Ὀλυμπίων ὦν ἐόντων καὶ νικῶν ἐν αὐτοῖσι τεθρίππῳ ὁ Κλεισθένης κήρυγμα ἐποιήσατο, ὅστις Ἑλλήνων ἑωυτὸν ἀξιοῖ Κλεισθένεος γαμβρὸν γενέσθαι, ἥκειν ἐς ἑξηκοστὴν ἡμέρην ἢ καὶ πρότερον ἐς Σικυῶνα, ὡς κυρώσοντος Κλεισθένεος τὸν γάμον ἐν ἐνιαυτῷ, ἀπὸ τῆς ἑξηκοστῆς ἀρξαμένου ἡμέρης. ἐνθαῦτα Ἑλλήνων ὅσοι σφίσι τε αὐτοῖσι ἦσαν καὶ πάτρῃ ἐξωγκωμένοι, ἐφοίτεον μνηστῆρες· τοῖσι Κλεισθένης καὶ δρόμον καὶ παλαίστρην ποιησάμενος ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ τούτῳ εἶχε.
[127]: From Italy came Smindyrides the son of Hippocrates of Sybaris, who of all men on earth reached the highest point of luxury (now Sybaris at this time was in the height of its prosperity), and Damasos of Siris, the son of that Amyris who was called the Wise; these came from Italy: from the Ionian gulf came Amphimnestos the son of Epistrophos of Epidamnos, this man from the Ionian gulf: from Aitolia came Males, the brother of that Titormos who surpassed all the Hellenes in strength and who fled from the presence of men to the furthest extremities of the Aitolian land: from Peloponnesus, Leokedes the son of Pheidon the despot of the Argives, that Pheidon who established for the Peloponnesians the measures which they use, and who went beyond all other Hellenes in wanton insolence, since he removed from their place the presidents of the games appointed by the Eleians and himself presided over the games at Olympia,--his son, I say, and Amiantos the son of Lycurgos an Arcadian from Trapezus, and Laphanes an Azanian from the city of Paios, son of that Euphorion who (according to the story told in Arcadia) received the Dioscuroi as guests in his house and from thenceforth was wont to entertain all men who came, and Onomastos the son of Agaios of Elis; these, I say, came from Peloponnesus itself: from Athens came Megacles the son of that Alcmaion who went to Crœsus, and besides him Hippocleides the son of Tisander, one who surpassed the other Athenians in wealth and in comeliness of form: from Eretria, which at that time was flourishing, came Lysanias, he alone from Eubœa: from Thessalia came Diactorides of Crannon, one of the family of the Scopadai: and from the Molossians, Alcon.
[127]: ἀπὸ μὲν δὴ Ἰταλίης ἦλθε Σμινδυρίδης ὁ Ἱπποκράτεος Συβαρίτης, ὃς ἐπὶ πλεῖστον δὴ χλιδῆς εἷς ἀνὴρ ἀπίκετο (ἡ δὲ Σύβαρις ἤκμαζε τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον μάλιστα), καὶ Σιρίτης Δάμασος Ἀμύριος τοῦ σοφοῦ λεγομένου παῖς. οὗτοι μὲν ἀπὸ Ἰταλίης ἦλθον, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ κόλπου τοῦ Ἰονίου Ἀμφίμνηστος Ἐπιστρόφου Ἐπιδάμνιος· οὗτος δὲ ἐκ τοῦ Ἰονίου κόλπου. Αἰτωλὸς δὲ ἦλθε Τιτόρμου τοῦ ὑπερφύντος τε Ἕλληνας ἰσχύι καὶ φυγόντος ἀνθρώπους ἐς τὰς ἐσχατιὰς τῆς Αἰτωλίδος χώρης, τούτου τοῦ Τιτόρμου ἀδελφεὸς Μάλης. ἀπὸ δὲ Πελοποννήσου Φείδωνος τοῦ Ἀργείων τυράννου παῖς Λεωκήδης, Φείδωνος δὲ τοῦ τὰ μέτρα ποιήσαντος Πελοποννησίοισι καὶ ὑβρίσαντος μέγιστα δὴ Ἑλλήνων πάντων, ὃς ἐξαναστήσας τοὺς Ἠλείων ἀγωνοθέτας αὐτὸς τὸν ἐν Ὀλυμπίῃ ἀγῶνα ἔθηκε· τούτου τε δὴ παῖς καὶ Ἀμίαντος Λυκούργου Ἀρκὰς ἐκ Τραπεζοῦντος, καὶ Ἀζὴν ἐκ Παίου πόλιος Λαφάνης Εὐφορίωνος τοῦ δεξαμένου τε, ὡς λόγος ἐν Ἀρκαδίῃ λέγεται, τοὺς Διοσκούρους οἰκίοισι καὶ ἀπὸ τούτου ξεινοδοκέοντος πάντας ἀνθρώπους, καὶ Ἠλεῖος Ὀνόμαστος Ἀγαίου. οὗτοι μὲν δὴ ἐξ αὐτῆς Πελοποννήσου ἦλθον, ἐκ δὲ Ἀθηνέων ἀπίκοντο Μεγακλέης τε ὁ Ἀλκμέωνος τούτου τοῦ παρὰ Κροῖσον ἀπικομένου, καὶ ἄλλος Ἱπποκλείδης Τισάνδρου, πλούτῳ καὶ εἴδεϊ προφέρων Ἀθηναίων. ἀπὸ δὲ Ἐρετρίης ἀνθεύσης τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Λυσανίης· οὗτος δὲ ἀπ᾽ Εὐβοίης μοῦνος. ἐκ δὲ Θεσσαλίης ἦλθε τῶν Σκοπαδέων Διακτορίδης Κραννώνιος, ἐκ δὲ Μολοσσῶν Ἄλκων.
Herodotus identified the candidates generically as “Hellene” but this does not explain at all if the eligibles were real Hellenes or just proud of their contrived Hellene background. Shuckburgh expressed surprise that a Molossian would be an eligible candidate for the daughter of a Greek king. According to him the Molossian would have required to invent a Hellene or a Pelasgic ancestry:
“The Molossians were not usually regarded as Hellenic, and it is somewhat remarkable that a suitor for the hand of a daughter of an Hellenic king should have been found among them. He probably claimed Hellenic or Pelasgic descent”. (Shuckburgh 2010: 201/202)
Elaborating further on the event, Herodotus writes:
[128]: So many in number did the wooers prove to be: and when these had come by the appointed day, Cleisthenes first inquired of their native countries and of the descent of each one, and then keeping them for a year he made trial continually both of their manly virtue and of their disposition, training and temper, associating both with each one separately and with the whole number together…
[128]: τοσοῦτοι μὲν ἐγένοντο οἱ μνηστῆρες. ἀπικομένων δὲ τούτων ἐς τὴν προειρημένην ἡμέρην, ὁ Κλεισθένης πρῶτα μὲν τὰς πάτρας τε αὐτῶν ἀνεπύθετο καὶ γένος ἑκάστου, μετὰ δὲ κατέχων ἐνιαυτὸν διεπειρᾶτο αὐτῶν τῆς τε ἀνδραγαθίης καὶ τῆς ὀργῆς καὶ παιδεύσιός τε καὶ τρόπου, καὶ ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ ἰὼν ἐς συνουσίην καὶ συνάπασι,
Cleisthenes appears ill at ease with the backgrounds of all the candidates. With all the probability Molossian Alkon had faked his geneaelogy and, as a result, Cleisthenes required a long period of time to verify candidates’ origin.
This case illustrates one reason why higher strata wanted to change their identity; the advanced Hellenic culture would be ideal ground to affirm themselvs. Herodotus has preserved a telling passage that convincingly illustrates the advantages of changing identity.
[Book 5: Terpsichore , 72]: "Lacedemonian stranger, go back and enter not into the temple, for it is not lawful for Dorians to pass in hither." He said: "Woman, I am not a Dorian, but an Achaian." So then, paying no attention to the ominous speech, he made his attempt and then was expelled again with the Lacedemonians; but the rest of the men the Athenians laid in bonds to be put to death, and among them Timesitheos the Delphian, with regard to whom I might mention very great deeds of strength and courage which he performed.
[V, 72]: ὦ ξεῖνε Λακεδαιμόνιε, πάλιν χώρεε μηδὲ ἔσιθι ἐς τὸ ἱρόν· οὐ γὰρ θεμιτὸν Δωριεῦσι παριέναι ἐνθαῦτα.» ὁ δὲ εἶπε «ὦ γύναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ Δωριεύς εἰμι ἀλλ᾽ Ἀχαιός.» ὃ μὲν δὴ τῇ κλεηδόνι οὐδὲν χρεώμενος ἐπεχείρησέ τε καὶ τότε πάλιν ἐξέπιπτε μετὰ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων· τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους Ἀθηναῖοι κατέδησαν τὴν ἐπὶ θανάτῳ, ἐν δὲ αὐτοῖσι καὶ Τιμησίθεον τὸν Δελφόν, τοῦ ἔργα χειρῶν τε καὶ λήματος ἔχοιμ᾽ ἂν μέγιστα καταλέξαι
The attraction to the Hellenic culture of the upper social strata on the main did not affect the ethno-cultural tradition of Epirus. This tradition had evolved very early and has been identified as being Illyrian in character. The main historical event that was to determine the ethnic character of Epirus was doubtless the collapse of the Mycenaean culture:
‘The last Illyrian penetration into northern Greece in the twelfth century BC led to the decay of the flourishing Mycenaean culture and to a complete upheaval in Greek political history. Epirus which had been in greater part Hellenized and whose religious center was the sanctuary of Zeus in Dodona, became once more Illyrian. Aetolia, a flourishing land in Homeric times, lapsed into almost complete barbarism. A great many of the Aetolians crossed the Corinthian Gulf, subjected the native Greek population, and settled in the land which became known as Elis’ (Dvornik 1966: 151).
According to the historian Henry Smith Williams, precisely at this time more than half of Aetolia ceased to be Grecian, and without doubt adopted the manners and language of the Illyrians, from which point the Athamanes, an Epirote and Illyrian nation, pressed into the south of Thessaly (1926: 110).
Referring to the Greece during the Dark Age, prior to the arrival of the Hellenes, Strabo indicated that upper Acarnania and Aetolia was populated by the Thesproti, the Cassopaei, the Amphilochi, the Molossi, and the Athamanes—Epeirotic tribes:
[7.7.1]: “ Ἀκαρνανίας δὲ καὶ Αἰτωλίας τὰ ἄνω Θεσπρωτοὶ καὶ Κασσωπαῖοι καὶ Ἀμφίλοχοι καὶ Μολοττοὶ καὶ Ἀθαμᾶνες, Ἠπειρωτικὰ ἔθνη”.
According to Thucydides [3.94 ]: “…Eurytanians, who are the largest tribe in Aetolia, and speak, as is said, a language exceedingly difficult to understand, and eat their flesh raw.
[3.94 ]: Εὐρυτᾶσιν, ὅπερ μέγιστον μέρος ἐστὶ τῶν Αἰτωλῶν, ἀγνωστότατοι δὲ γλῶσσανκαὶ ὠμοφάγοι εἰσίν, ὡς λέγονται).
A real ethnographic picture of these areas (Hellenicity of which has been questioned) comes from a proverbial citation of Macedonian King, Philip V, about the demand of the Roman delegation that he withdraw from Greece:
[Polybius, Book XVIII. 5]: 'What is this Greece which you demand that I should evacuate, and what how do you define Greece? Certainly most of the Aetolians themselves are not Greeks! The countries of the Agraae, the Apodotea, and the Amphilochians cannot be regarded as Greeks. So do you allow to me to remain in those territories'.
[XVIII. 5]: Αἰτωλῶν δ' οὐκ ἀνεκτόν: ποίας δὲ κελεύετέ με" φησὶν " ἐκχωρεῖν Ἑλλάδος καὶ πῶς ἀφορίζετε ταύτην; αὐτῶν γὰρ Αἰτωλῶν οὐκ εἰσὶν Ἕλληνες οἱ πλείους: τὸ γὰρ τῶν Ἀγραῶν ἔθνος καὶ τὸ τῶν Ἀποδωτῶν, ἔτι δὲ τῶν Ἀμφιλόχων, οὐκ ἔστιν Ἑλλάς. ἢ τούτων μὲν παραχωρεῖτέ μοι;"
The unclear ethnic picture in these territories seems to be prevalent even during Strabo’s time. In the following passage, he seems to be unsure as to which people to include within Greece:
[10.1.16]: “…the Aetolians, Acarnanians, and Athamanians (if these too are to be called Greeks)…”
[10.1.16]: “…Αἰτωλοὶ καὶ Ἀκαρνᾶνές εἰσι καὶ Ἀθαμᾶνες, εἰ χρὴ καὶ τούτους Ἕλληνας εἰπεῖν”.
One way to explain this confusion concerning the identification of ethnicities in these areas, is to conclude that Epirus was profoundly Illyrian, and that the Illyrian element had penetrated Aetolia, Acarnania, and Athamania:
“Acarnania, like other states of the kind, was the result of conquest by an invading host. The conquest might well have resulted in a mixed population in which any non-Greek elements would be likely to be Illyrian. Actually there are a number of Illyrian place names in Acarnania, but they are relatively few” (Larsen 1968: 90).
In October 1984, 70 historians and archaeologists from Greece, Albania, Romania, Italy and several other countries of Europe convened in Clermont-Ferrand, France. They held a colloquium with a group of Specialists in ancient history who were working there under the direction of Professor Pierre Kaban, the renowned expert on Epirus. They compared studies on the tribal and ethnic groups which gradually organized into urban life, then federated into state organizations. They compared juridical institutions such as family right of ownership, the role of the woman in the family and the procedure in freeing slaves. Similarities of Epirot centers like Dodona and those of Southern Illyria were evidenced by the layout, architecture, and political organization, also the circulation of coins, the structure of groves, the burial rites and articles found in the tumuli. But scholars concluded that from early antiquity until the Roman times that culture of southern Illyria and Epirus, including Molossia, was quite different from that of classical Greece as found in Athens and Sparta (Jacques 1995).
Another perspective from which one can expound on the identity of the Epirotes in antiquity is the establishment of Greek colonies on the coastline north of Greece. Apparently the population in the interior of Epirus had to had been less hospitable because no colonization has been recorded there. As to which ethnicity inhabited the areas where the colonies were established, Niebuhr had no problem deciding what they were not one century ago: ‘the fact that colonies were established there, is a proof that the Epirots were not Greeks; for we surely cannot suppose that the Greeks founded colonies in their own country’ (1852: 137).
Proponents of nationalist Greek claims have attempted to abase every reference not in line with their view. Of their favored mention are two of Herodotus fragments that supposedly indicate that the Thesprotians dwelt in Greece (2.56) and that the Dodonaeans were Greeks (4.33).
Indeed, Herodotus shed some light about the temple of Dodona and Thesprotia which were known to the Greeks of his time, but however this gives no hints on ethnic character of the Epirots. Whereas in another fragment he drew up the boundaries of Greece on the basis of military contingents which took part in the Troy War on the side of Greeks. According to this point of view, the Leucade and Ambracia marked the furthest northern point of Greece [8. 47: Ἀμπρακιώτῃσι καὶ Λευκαδίοισι, οἳ ἐξ ἐσχατέων χωρέων ἐστρατεύοντο].
It has been assumed that Herodotus implied that the people of Epirus were Greeks. This comes from a vague verse taken from Herodotus [Book 4: 33]: "...and the people of Dodona receive them first of all the Hellenes" (πρώτους Δωδωναίους Ἑλλήνων δέκεσθαι). However, this interpretation has been dismantled a long time ago:
‘Though Herodotus speaks of Thesprotia as a part of Hellas. He refers later to its old condition, when it was a celebrated seat of the Pelasgians, than to its state at the time when he wrote his history’ (Anthon 2005: 483).
It was a Greek lexicographer like Hecateus of Miletus who noticed that what was Greece in his time has been previously inhabited by a non-Greek people, which he used to call as 'barbarian'. (Ἑκαταῖος μὲν οὖν ὁ Μιλήσιος περὶ τῆς Πελοποννήσου φησὶν διότι πρὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ᾤκησαν αὐτὴν βάρβαροι).
Plutarch records in his account an interesting glimpse when Pyrrhus as a little child went to the Illyrian king, Glaucias of Taulanti. The Illyrian king escaped the poor Pyrrhus from his dangerous rivals, and treated him generously as his own son. Later, Glaucias headed a large Illyrian army which settled Pyrrhus upon throne of Epirus. This reflects the narrow relations between Illyrians and Epirots; they intermingled with one another to the level of intermarriages at royal level.
As far as literary tradition goes, we find not a single evidence to suggest any major difference between Illyrian and the language of Epirots.
It has been my intention to negate Greek nationalist claims about Epirus, by pointing to a broad spectrum of sources in support of Illyrian character of Epirots. I have not analyzed the historical scope of the Hellenic influence on the Epirotes. But as of Pound indicated:
‘It was not easy to define Greece as the term was understood in the fifth century. That it was the area within which Greeks lived goes without saying, but the Greek people themselves spoke several dialects, and near the borders of the Greek world these passed into the distinct languages of the ‘barbarian’ peoples like Illyrians and Thracians. Epirus formed no part of Greece, and in the fifth century Greek commerce and culture had made little impression on its tribes. It is doubtful whether the tribes of Aetolia and Acarnania should be considered Greek” (1977: 30).
Even by Strabo’s time Epirots continued to preserve their identity. Strabo indicated, at about the beginning of the new era, that some Macedonia encompasses also the area that extended to Korkyra for the reason of similarity in habits of the population and also for the fact that some of the population was bilingual. It is interesting that Strabo seems to indicate similarities that with inhabitants this area but does not mention Greeks, although by this time the Greek language was in extensive use by the Macedonians. Referring to the indicated bilingualism in Epirus, M. Nilsson wrote:
‘If there were people amongst the Epiriots who spoke two languages, one of the languages must have been Greek which they used in subscriptions, and the other was the local tongue’ (1909: 137).
Bibliography:
Grant, M. 1988: Civilization of the ancient Mediterranean, vol. 1 (Scribner’s).
Hammond, N.G.L. 1967: Epirus (Oxford).
Hornblower, S. 1991: A commentary on Thucydides, vol. I (Oxford).
Gomme, A. W. 1956: Historical Commentary on Thucydides, vol. II (Oxford).
Hornblower, S. 1996: The Oxford classical dictionary, vol. 1 (Oxford University Press).
Hornblower, S. 1996: The Oxford classical dictionary, vol. 1 (Oxford University Press).
Nilsson, M. P. 1986: Cults, myths, oracles, and politics in ancient Greece (P. Åström).
Browning, R. 1983: Medieval and Modern Greek (Cambridge University Press).
Katiçiç, R. 1976: Ancient languages of the Balkans, vol. 1 (Mouton).
Hall, E. 1996: When is a myth not a myth?. Black Athena revisited, 343.
Carney, E.D. 2006: Olympias (Taylor & Francis).
Shuckburgh, E.S. 2010: Herodotus, Book 6 (Cambridge University Press).
Dvornik, F. 1966: Early Christian and Byzantine political philosophy (Dumbarton Oaks).
Williams, H.S. 1926: The historian’s history of the world, vol. 3-4 (The Encyclopaedia britannica co).
Larsen, J.A.O. 1968: Greek federal states (Clarendon P).
Jacques, E.E. 1995: The Albanians: an ethnic history from prehistoric times to the present (McFarland).
Niebuhr, B.G. 1852: Lectures on Ancient History, vol. III (London).
Anthon, Ch. 2005: A classical dictionary (Kessinger Publishing).
Pounds, N. J.G. 1977: An historical geography of Europe (CUP Archive).
Nilsson. M. 1909: Studien zur Geschichte d’altem Apeiros (Lund).
By: Zigur Belaxhiu
Source: www.albpelasgian.com/the-southern-illyrians-epirots.html
Epirus and Epirots, who have had an impressive survival history, have not received adequate scholarly attention. Contemporary historians have treated the subject only superficially, most likely in an attempt not to enter into a controversy with the proponents of the Greek claim that Epirus and Epirots were Greek, a claim which is in total contradiction to the historical sources.
In fact, most of Greek and Roman sources attest to a specific non-Greek ethnic identity for the Epirots. Greek and Roman sources convey abundant information for an assumption that Epirus was the land of a very ancient people and its people was considered ‘barbarian’ (βάρβαρον). These sources allow us to conclude with a tolerable safety that:
• Epirots were ethnically distinct from the Greeks;
• Ancient Greeks perceived the Epirots as being distinct and not part of their ethnos;
• Higher aristocratic strata adapted aspects of Hellenic culture, but overall the populace preserved its non-Hellenic identity.
The Greeks of antiquity had no clear concepts about the peoples north of their territories. If the perception of this variegated barbarian world to the north was imprecise, at the same time, the sources indicate that the Greeks had no difficulty in differentiating themselves from them, finding their language as totally unintelligible, and characterized them as “barbarian” (people that speak a non-Greek language). The Greek geographer, Strabo wrote about the line that separated at one time the Greeks from these “barbarians’:
[7. 7. 1]: Moreover, the barbarian origin of some is indicated by their names—Cecrops, Godrus, Aïclus, Cothus, Drymas, and Crinacus. And even to the present day the Thracians, Illyrians, and Epeirotes live on the flanks of the Greeks (though this was still more the case formerly than now); indeed most of the country that at the present time is indisputably Greece is held by the barbarians—Macedonia and certain parts of Thessaly by the Thracians, and the parts above Acarnania and Aetolia by the Thesproti, the Cassopaei, the Amphilochi, the Molossi, and the Athamanes—Epeirotic tribes.
[7. 7. 1]: καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ὀνομάτων δὲ ἐνίων τὸ βάρβαρον ἐμφαίνεται, Κέκροψ καὶ Κόδρος καὶ Ἄικλος καὶ Κόθος καὶ Δρύμας καὶ Κρίνακος. οἱ δὲ Θρᾷκες καὶ Ἰλλυριοὶ καὶ Ἠπειρῶται καὶ μέχρι νῦν ἐν πλευραῖς εἰσιν• ἔτι μέντοι μᾶλλον πρότερον ἢ νῦν, ὅπου γε καὶ τῆς ἐν τῷ παρόντι Ἑλλάδος ἀναντιλέκτως οὔσης τὴν πολλὴν οἱ βάρβαροι ἔχουσι, Μακεδονίαν μὲν Θρᾷκες καί τινα μέρη τῆς Θετταλίας, Ἀκαρνανίας δὲ καὶ Αἰτωλίας τὰ ἄνω Θεσπρωτοὶ καὶ Κασσωπαῖοι καὶ Ἀμφίλοχοι καὶ Μολοττοὶ καὶ Ἀθαμᾶνες, Ἠπειρωτικὰ ἔθνη.
The meaning of the term “barbarian” was fluid, but in most of the cases, the term, used with identical meaning for Illyrians, Epirots, Macedonians, Dacians and Thracians, implied an ethno-cultural identity which differed fundamentally from that of Greek. Thucydides and Strabo distinguished clearly Epirots from the Greeks.
Only two of Thucydides' (2.80) northern chieftains have Greek names and many Epirote tribes did not speak Greek (Strabo 7.7.1) (Grant 1988). Thucydides [2.68] would also distinguish the local population from Greek colonizers who were culturally impacting the local population. Talking about how Amphilochia became “Hellenized”, he indicated that the Argive hero Amphilochus founded Amphilochian Argos, a city within a barbarian land (Amphilochia) which became “hellenized as to the language they now have” (hellenisthesan ten nun glossan) from association with Ambraciots brought in by its inhabitants as additional colonizers.
Hammond (1967: 419-20) suggests the Argives only switched dialect and that the other ‘barbarian’ Amphilochians spoke an uncouth form of Greek. This is certainly not what Thucydides says (Hornblower 1991). Gomme (1956) inferred that Amphilochus was a barbarian.
Proponents of the thesis that Epirots were Greek point to the fact that in epigraphical sources most of the names are Greek. But this is not an adequate or a consequential reason. History is full of examples of people adapting cultural aspects of neighboring peoples. It has been ascertained that Epirus received Hellenic influence from the Elean colonies in Cassopaea and the Corinthian colonies at Ambracia and Corcyra (Hornblower 1996). Herodotus is more specific about this phenomenon. He indicated that when Dorians settled in Peloponnesus, they took upon themselves to do away with differences with the local population, they even Hellenized their tribal names. Here is how Herodotus puts it:
[Book V, 68]: “Thus he had done to Adrastos; and he also changed the names of the Dorian tribes, in order that the Sikyonians might not have the same tribes as the Argives; in which matter he showed great contempt of the Sikyonians, for the names he gave were taken from the names of a pig and an ass by changing only the endings”.
[V, 68]: ταῦτα μὲν ἐς Ἄδρηστόν οἱ ἐπεποίητο, φυλὰς δὲ τὰς Δωριέων, ἵνα δὴ μὴ αἱ αὐταὶ ἔωσι τοῖσι Σικυωνίοισι καὶ τοῖσι Ἀργείοισι, μετέβαλε ἐς ἄλλα οὐνόματα. ἔνθα καὶ πλεῖστον κατεγέλασε τῶν Σικυωνίων· ἐπὶ γὰρ ὑός τε καὶ ὄνου τὰς ἐπωνυμίας μετατιθεὶς αὐτὰ τὰ τελευταῖα ἐπέθηκε, πλὴν τῆς ἑωυτοῦ φυλῆς· ταύτῃ δὲ τὸ οὔνομα ἀπὸ τῆς ἑωυτοῦ ἀρχῆς ἔθετο .
In fact a preponderance of sources from ancient authors distinguished the Epirots from the Greeks. At same the same time the sources point to no such distinction between the Epirots and the Illyrians. This prompted William Ridgeway to suggest that ‘there was no sharp line between the speech of Illyrians and Thesprotians or Thessalians’ (1901: 352).
In reality, ancient authors never use to ascribe a Greek identity to all Epirots in general. Indeed, some ancient Greek authors tried to portray only the ruling elite of Epirots as being Greek. As for the Greek cultural elements that characterized some in this elite, there is abundant sources that points to their late introduction in Epirus.
M. P. Nilsson would note that “during the fifth century BC the Epirots were drawn into Greek politics and began to be Hellenized” (1986: 105). A high point of this tendency was reached as Epirots under Pyrrhus, thanks to their military capability, extended their power beyond Epirus into the disrupted Greek world. And to legitimize their expansionist policies, they invented geneaelogical lines attributable to their ‘Greek origin’. The genealogy of their royal house was carried back into the Greek mythical age. According to Nilsson, the creation of these myths signified an ‘overdone eagerness of a barbarian house to appear as heroic Greeks’ (1986: 108). But even after the higher strata of the society had adapted Hellenic cultural aspects, in general, Epirots were never accepted as authentic Greeks.
Even proponents of the ‘Greekness’ of Epirus see Epirots as having a ‘barbarian’ origin but they explain that this was due to their primitive and backward way of life. At the same time, some of these historians are forced to account for a non-Greek element in Epirus. Robert Browning indicates:
‘The language of the Epirotes is repeatedly described in antiquity as non-Greek (Thucydides 1.47, 1.51, 2.80, Strabo, 8.1.3). Yet the Epirotes were connected with the origin of various Greek communities’ (1983: 2).
There may well have been an ethnic and linguistic mixture in Epirus, some tribes speaking Greek, others Illyrian or some other language (cf. Hammond (1967: 423); Katičić (1976: 120-7).
Being more precise, if Epirots were connected with, say Pelasgians or Dorians, that does not make them Greeks, to the contrary this would indicates how different from the Greeks they were; and if there was any ethnic and linguistic mixture, it had to have come late in history, with the establishment of Greek colonies and various interactions between the two peoples.
King Tharypa who in his early years was educated in Athens, on his return to Molossia introduced among the Molottians, Greek forms, Greek manners, and the language of Greece as far as he could, for his power, like that of all other Molottian kings, was very limited. In his ‘Life of Pyrrhus’, Plutarch relates the historical tradition that attributed to Tharypas responsibility for introducing Greek customs, laws and letters to the cities of Molossia. The late Roman epitomist Justin claims that Tharyps ‘primus itaque leges et senatum annuosque magistratus….composuit’ (first set up laws, the senate and annual magistracies).
Import of Hellenic culture is not unique to Epirus. Parthian kings also pretended to be champions of Hellenism. From the reign of Artabanus I. (128/7-123 B.C.) they bear the epithet of ‘Philhellen’ as a regular part of their title upon the coins. That the Parthian court itself was to some extent Hellenized is shown by the story, often adduced, that a Greek company of actors was performing the Bacchae before the king when the head of Crassus was brought in. This single instance need not, it is true, show a Hellenism of any profundity; still it does show that certain parts of Hellenism had become so essential to the lustre of a court that even an Arsacid could not be without them. Artavasdes, king of Armenia (54?-34 B.C.) composed Greek tragedies and histories (Plut. Crass. 33)”.
For some historians, the imported cultural attributes were a good enough reason to prove that Epirotes were Greek, even assume that they were Greek even from the outset. Logically, if Epirotes had been Greek, why would they, for example, had to coin their genealogical lineage to show their ‘Greekness’?
Hellenism abetted since the time of King Tharypa has to be seen in a wider context to understand its nature and scope. It was a cultural force that proved advantageous to adapt to, especially for the higher social strata. But becoming part of Hellenic world would not be easy with inherited contradiction. N. G. L. Hammond asserts that mythical foundations were being laid for the entry of the Epirotes and the Macedonians into the Greek world (1967).
Ethnicity could be proved or challenged by inventing genealogies and mythical precedents. Euripides wrote propagandist plays for such peoples as the Macedonians (Archelaus) and probably the Molossians (Andromache), and brings to light the claims of mythical origins and genealogical manipulation to Hellenicity, when their detractors in the Greek world insisted that they were barbarians (Hall 1992).
As historical sources indicate, only the higher strata of society saw it to their advantage to put forth such claims. Elizabeth Donnelly Carney indicated that ‘The degree of Hellenization of Molossia outside the royal family is debatable’ (2006: 140). In reality, there is enough evidence to conclude that the general populace preserved its ethnic individuality and Hellenism did not make much an inroad.
Nationalist Greek historians wantingly misinterpreted a fragment from Herodotus, where a Molossian nobleman is presented in midst of “Greeks” who competed to take for wife Agariste. For the sake of authenticity, I will present the whole text:
[126]: For Cleisthenes the son of Arisonymos, the son of Myron, the son of Andreas, had a daughter whose name was Agariste; and as to her he formed a desire to find out the best man of all the Hellenes and to assign her to him in marriage. So when the Olympic games were being held and Cleisthenes was victor in them with a four- horse chariot, he caused a proclamation to be made, that whosoever of the Hellenes thought himself worthy to be the son-in-law of Cleisthenes should come on the sixtieth day, or before that if he would, to Sikyon; for Cleisthenes intended to conclude the marriage within a year, reckoning from the sixtieth day. Then all those of the Hellenes who had pride either in themselves or in their high descent, came as wooers, and for them Cleisthenes had a running- course and a wrestling-place made and kept them expressly for their use.
[126]: Κλεισθένεϊ γὰρ τῷ Ἀριστωνύμου τοῦ Μύρωνος τοῦ Ἀνδρέω γίνεται θυγάτηρ τῇ οὔνομα ἦν Ἀγαρίστη. ταύτην ἠθέλησε, Ἑλλήνων ἁπάντων ἐξευρὼν τὸν ἄριστον, τούτῳ γυναῖκα προσθεῖναι. Ὀλυμπίων ὦν ἐόντων καὶ νικῶν ἐν αὐτοῖσι τεθρίππῳ ὁ Κλεισθένης κήρυγμα ἐποιήσατο, ὅστις Ἑλλήνων ἑωυτὸν ἀξιοῖ Κλεισθένεος γαμβρὸν γενέσθαι, ἥκειν ἐς ἑξηκοστὴν ἡμέρην ἢ καὶ πρότερον ἐς Σικυῶνα, ὡς κυρώσοντος Κλεισθένεος τὸν γάμον ἐν ἐνιαυτῷ, ἀπὸ τῆς ἑξηκοστῆς ἀρξαμένου ἡμέρης. ἐνθαῦτα Ἑλλήνων ὅσοι σφίσι τε αὐτοῖσι ἦσαν καὶ πάτρῃ ἐξωγκωμένοι, ἐφοίτεον μνηστῆρες· τοῖσι Κλεισθένης καὶ δρόμον καὶ παλαίστρην ποιησάμενος ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ τούτῳ εἶχε.
[127]: From Italy came Smindyrides the son of Hippocrates of Sybaris, who of all men on earth reached the highest point of luxury (now Sybaris at this time was in the height of its prosperity), and Damasos of Siris, the son of that Amyris who was called the Wise; these came from Italy: from the Ionian gulf came Amphimnestos the son of Epistrophos of Epidamnos, this man from the Ionian gulf: from Aitolia came Males, the brother of that Titormos who surpassed all the Hellenes in strength and who fled from the presence of men to the furthest extremities of the Aitolian land: from Peloponnesus, Leokedes the son of Pheidon the despot of the Argives, that Pheidon who established for the Peloponnesians the measures which they use, and who went beyond all other Hellenes in wanton insolence, since he removed from their place the presidents of the games appointed by the Eleians and himself presided over the games at Olympia,--his son, I say, and Amiantos the son of Lycurgos an Arcadian from Trapezus, and Laphanes an Azanian from the city of Paios, son of that Euphorion who (according to the story told in Arcadia) received the Dioscuroi as guests in his house and from thenceforth was wont to entertain all men who came, and Onomastos the son of Agaios of Elis; these, I say, came from Peloponnesus itself: from Athens came Megacles the son of that Alcmaion who went to Crœsus, and besides him Hippocleides the son of Tisander, one who surpassed the other Athenians in wealth and in comeliness of form: from Eretria, which at that time was flourishing, came Lysanias, he alone from Eubœa: from Thessalia came Diactorides of Crannon, one of the family of the Scopadai: and from the Molossians, Alcon.
[127]: ἀπὸ μὲν δὴ Ἰταλίης ἦλθε Σμινδυρίδης ὁ Ἱπποκράτεος Συβαρίτης, ὃς ἐπὶ πλεῖστον δὴ χλιδῆς εἷς ἀνὴρ ἀπίκετο (ἡ δὲ Σύβαρις ἤκμαζε τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον μάλιστα), καὶ Σιρίτης Δάμασος Ἀμύριος τοῦ σοφοῦ λεγομένου παῖς. οὗτοι μὲν ἀπὸ Ἰταλίης ἦλθον, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ κόλπου τοῦ Ἰονίου Ἀμφίμνηστος Ἐπιστρόφου Ἐπιδάμνιος· οὗτος δὲ ἐκ τοῦ Ἰονίου κόλπου. Αἰτωλὸς δὲ ἦλθε Τιτόρμου τοῦ ὑπερφύντος τε Ἕλληνας ἰσχύι καὶ φυγόντος ἀνθρώπους ἐς τὰς ἐσχατιὰς τῆς Αἰτωλίδος χώρης, τούτου τοῦ Τιτόρμου ἀδελφεὸς Μάλης. ἀπὸ δὲ Πελοποννήσου Φείδωνος τοῦ Ἀργείων τυράννου παῖς Λεωκήδης, Φείδωνος δὲ τοῦ τὰ μέτρα ποιήσαντος Πελοποννησίοισι καὶ ὑβρίσαντος μέγιστα δὴ Ἑλλήνων πάντων, ὃς ἐξαναστήσας τοὺς Ἠλείων ἀγωνοθέτας αὐτὸς τὸν ἐν Ὀλυμπίῃ ἀγῶνα ἔθηκε· τούτου τε δὴ παῖς καὶ Ἀμίαντος Λυκούργου Ἀρκὰς ἐκ Τραπεζοῦντος, καὶ Ἀζὴν ἐκ Παίου πόλιος Λαφάνης Εὐφορίωνος τοῦ δεξαμένου τε, ὡς λόγος ἐν Ἀρκαδίῃ λέγεται, τοὺς Διοσκούρους οἰκίοισι καὶ ἀπὸ τούτου ξεινοδοκέοντος πάντας ἀνθρώπους, καὶ Ἠλεῖος Ὀνόμαστος Ἀγαίου. οὗτοι μὲν δὴ ἐξ αὐτῆς Πελοποννήσου ἦλθον, ἐκ δὲ Ἀθηνέων ἀπίκοντο Μεγακλέης τε ὁ Ἀλκμέωνος τούτου τοῦ παρὰ Κροῖσον ἀπικομένου, καὶ ἄλλος Ἱπποκλείδης Τισάνδρου, πλούτῳ καὶ εἴδεϊ προφέρων Ἀθηναίων. ἀπὸ δὲ Ἐρετρίης ἀνθεύσης τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Λυσανίης· οὗτος δὲ ἀπ᾽ Εὐβοίης μοῦνος. ἐκ δὲ Θεσσαλίης ἦλθε τῶν Σκοπαδέων Διακτορίδης Κραννώνιος, ἐκ δὲ Μολοσσῶν Ἄλκων.
Herodotus identified the candidates generically as “Hellene” but this does not explain at all if the eligibles were real Hellenes or just proud of their contrived Hellene background. Shuckburgh expressed surprise that a Molossian would be an eligible candidate for the daughter of a Greek king. According to him the Molossian would have required to invent a Hellene or a Pelasgic ancestry:
“The Molossians were not usually regarded as Hellenic, and it is somewhat remarkable that a suitor for the hand of a daughter of an Hellenic king should have been found among them. He probably claimed Hellenic or Pelasgic descent”. (Shuckburgh 2010: 201/202)
Elaborating further on the event, Herodotus writes:
[128]: So many in number did the wooers prove to be: and when these had come by the appointed day, Cleisthenes first inquired of their native countries and of the descent of each one, and then keeping them for a year he made trial continually both of their manly virtue and of their disposition, training and temper, associating both with each one separately and with the whole number together…
[128]: τοσοῦτοι μὲν ἐγένοντο οἱ μνηστῆρες. ἀπικομένων δὲ τούτων ἐς τὴν προειρημένην ἡμέρην, ὁ Κλεισθένης πρῶτα μὲν τὰς πάτρας τε αὐτῶν ἀνεπύθετο καὶ γένος ἑκάστου, μετὰ δὲ κατέχων ἐνιαυτὸν διεπειρᾶτο αὐτῶν τῆς τε ἀνδραγαθίης καὶ τῆς ὀργῆς καὶ παιδεύσιός τε καὶ τρόπου, καὶ ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ ἰὼν ἐς συνουσίην καὶ συνάπασι,
Cleisthenes appears ill at ease with the backgrounds of all the candidates. With all the probability Molossian Alkon had faked his geneaelogy and, as a result, Cleisthenes required a long period of time to verify candidates’ origin.
This case illustrates one reason why higher strata wanted to change their identity; the advanced Hellenic culture would be ideal ground to affirm themselvs. Herodotus has preserved a telling passage that convincingly illustrates the advantages of changing identity.
[Book 5: Terpsichore , 72]: "Lacedemonian stranger, go back and enter not into the temple, for it is not lawful for Dorians to pass in hither." He said: "Woman, I am not a Dorian, but an Achaian." So then, paying no attention to the ominous speech, he made his attempt and then was expelled again with the Lacedemonians; but the rest of the men the Athenians laid in bonds to be put to death, and among them Timesitheos the Delphian, with regard to whom I might mention very great deeds of strength and courage which he performed.
[V, 72]: ὦ ξεῖνε Λακεδαιμόνιε, πάλιν χώρεε μηδὲ ἔσιθι ἐς τὸ ἱρόν· οὐ γὰρ θεμιτὸν Δωριεῦσι παριέναι ἐνθαῦτα.» ὁ δὲ εἶπε «ὦ γύναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ Δωριεύς εἰμι ἀλλ᾽ Ἀχαιός.» ὃ μὲν δὴ τῇ κλεηδόνι οὐδὲν χρεώμενος ἐπεχείρησέ τε καὶ τότε πάλιν ἐξέπιπτε μετὰ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων· τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους Ἀθηναῖοι κατέδησαν τὴν ἐπὶ θανάτῳ, ἐν δὲ αὐτοῖσι καὶ Τιμησίθεον τὸν Δελφόν, τοῦ ἔργα χειρῶν τε καὶ λήματος ἔχοιμ᾽ ἂν μέγιστα καταλέξαι
The attraction to the Hellenic culture of the upper social strata on the main did not affect the ethno-cultural tradition of Epirus. This tradition had evolved very early and has been identified as being Illyrian in character. The main historical event that was to determine the ethnic character of Epirus was doubtless the collapse of the Mycenaean culture:
‘The last Illyrian penetration into northern Greece in the twelfth century BC led to the decay of the flourishing Mycenaean culture and to a complete upheaval in Greek political history. Epirus which had been in greater part Hellenized and whose religious center was the sanctuary of Zeus in Dodona, became once more Illyrian. Aetolia, a flourishing land in Homeric times, lapsed into almost complete barbarism. A great many of the Aetolians crossed the Corinthian Gulf, subjected the native Greek population, and settled in the land which became known as Elis’ (Dvornik 1966: 151).
According to the historian Henry Smith Williams, precisely at this time more than half of Aetolia ceased to be Grecian, and without doubt adopted the manners and language of the Illyrians, from which point the Athamanes, an Epirote and Illyrian nation, pressed into the south of Thessaly (1926: 110).
Referring to the Greece during the Dark Age, prior to the arrival of the Hellenes, Strabo indicated that upper Acarnania and Aetolia was populated by the Thesproti, the Cassopaei, the Amphilochi, the Molossi, and the Athamanes—Epeirotic tribes:
[7.7.1]: “ Ἀκαρνανίας δὲ καὶ Αἰτωλίας τὰ ἄνω Θεσπρωτοὶ καὶ Κασσωπαῖοι καὶ Ἀμφίλοχοι καὶ Μολοττοὶ καὶ Ἀθαμᾶνες, Ἠπειρωτικὰ ἔθνη”.
According to Thucydides [3.94 ]: “…Eurytanians, who are the largest tribe in Aetolia, and speak, as is said, a language exceedingly difficult to understand, and eat their flesh raw.
[3.94 ]: Εὐρυτᾶσιν, ὅπερ μέγιστον μέρος ἐστὶ τῶν Αἰτωλῶν, ἀγνωστότατοι δὲ γλῶσσανκαὶ ὠμοφάγοι εἰσίν, ὡς λέγονται).
A real ethnographic picture of these areas (Hellenicity of which has been questioned) comes from a proverbial citation of Macedonian King, Philip V, about the demand of the Roman delegation that he withdraw from Greece:
[Polybius, Book XVIII. 5]: 'What is this Greece which you demand that I should evacuate, and what how do you define Greece? Certainly most of the Aetolians themselves are not Greeks! The countries of the Agraae, the Apodotea, and the Amphilochians cannot be regarded as Greeks. So do you allow to me to remain in those territories'.
[XVIII. 5]: Αἰτωλῶν δ' οὐκ ἀνεκτόν: ποίας δὲ κελεύετέ με" φησὶν " ἐκχωρεῖν Ἑλλάδος καὶ πῶς ἀφορίζετε ταύτην; αὐτῶν γὰρ Αἰτωλῶν οὐκ εἰσὶν Ἕλληνες οἱ πλείους: τὸ γὰρ τῶν Ἀγραῶν ἔθνος καὶ τὸ τῶν Ἀποδωτῶν, ἔτι δὲ τῶν Ἀμφιλόχων, οὐκ ἔστιν Ἑλλάς. ἢ τούτων μὲν παραχωρεῖτέ μοι;"
The unclear ethnic picture in these territories seems to be prevalent even during Strabo’s time. In the following passage, he seems to be unsure as to which people to include within Greece:
[10.1.16]: “…the Aetolians, Acarnanians, and Athamanians (if these too are to be called Greeks)…”
[10.1.16]: “…Αἰτωλοὶ καὶ Ἀκαρνᾶνές εἰσι καὶ Ἀθαμᾶνες, εἰ χρὴ καὶ τούτους Ἕλληνας εἰπεῖν”.
One way to explain this confusion concerning the identification of ethnicities in these areas, is to conclude that Epirus was profoundly Illyrian, and that the Illyrian element had penetrated Aetolia, Acarnania, and Athamania:
“Acarnania, like other states of the kind, was the result of conquest by an invading host. The conquest might well have resulted in a mixed population in which any non-Greek elements would be likely to be Illyrian. Actually there are a number of Illyrian place names in Acarnania, but they are relatively few” (Larsen 1968: 90).
In October 1984, 70 historians and archaeologists from Greece, Albania, Romania, Italy and several other countries of Europe convened in Clermont-Ferrand, France. They held a colloquium with a group of Specialists in ancient history who were working there under the direction of Professor Pierre Kaban, the renowned expert on Epirus. They compared studies on the tribal and ethnic groups which gradually organized into urban life, then federated into state organizations. They compared juridical institutions such as family right of ownership, the role of the woman in the family and the procedure in freeing slaves. Similarities of Epirot centers like Dodona and those of Southern Illyria were evidenced by the layout, architecture, and political organization, also the circulation of coins, the structure of groves, the burial rites and articles found in the tumuli. But scholars concluded that from early antiquity until the Roman times that culture of southern Illyria and Epirus, including Molossia, was quite different from that of classical Greece as found in Athens and Sparta (Jacques 1995).
Another perspective from which one can expound on the identity of the Epirotes in antiquity is the establishment of Greek colonies on the coastline north of Greece. Apparently the population in the interior of Epirus had to had been less hospitable because no colonization has been recorded there. As to which ethnicity inhabited the areas where the colonies were established, Niebuhr had no problem deciding what they were not one century ago: ‘the fact that colonies were established there, is a proof that the Epirots were not Greeks; for we surely cannot suppose that the Greeks founded colonies in their own country’ (1852: 137).
Proponents of nationalist Greek claims have attempted to abase every reference not in line with their view. Of their favored mention are two of Herodotus fragments that supposedly indicate that the Thesprotians dwelt in Greece (2.56) and that the Dodonaeans were Greeks (4.33).
Indeed, Herodotus shed some light about the temple of Dodona and Thesprotia which were known to the Greeks of his time, but however this gives no hints on ethnic character of the Epirots. Whereas in another fragment he drew up the boundaries of Greece on the basis of military contingents which took part in the Troy War on the side of Greeks. According to this point of view, the Leucade and Ambracia marked the furthest northern point of Greece [8. 47: Ἀμπρακιώτῃσι καὶ Λευκαδίοισι, οἳ ἐξ ἐσχατέων χωρέων ἐστρατεύοντο].
It has been assumed that Herodotus implied that the people of Epirus were Greeks. This comes from a vague verse taken from Herodotus [Book 4: 33]: "...and the people of Dodona receive them first of all the Hellenes" (πρώτους Δωδωναίους Ἑλλήνων δέκεσθαι). However, this interpretation has been dismantled a long time ago:
‘Though Herodotus speaks of Thesprotia as a part of Hellas. He refers later to its old condition, when it was a celebrated seat of the Pelasgians, than to its state at the time when he wrote his history’ (Anthon 2005: 483).
It was a Greek lexicographer like Hecateus of Miletus who noticed that what was Greece in his time has been previously inhabited by a non-Greek people, which he used to call as 'barbarian'. (Ἑκαταῖος μὲν οὖν ὁ Μιλήσιος περὶ τῆς Πελοποννήσου φησὶν διότι πρὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ᾤκησαν αὐτὴν βάρβαροι).
Plutarch records in his account an interesting glimpse when Pyrrhus as a little child went to the Illyrian king, Glaucias of Taulanti. The Illyrian king escaped the poor Pyrrhus from his dangerous rivals, and treated him generously as his own son. Later, Glaucias headed a large Illyrian army which settled Pyrrhus upon throne of Epirus. This reflects the narrow relations between Illyrians and Epirots; they intermingled with one another to the level of intermarriages at royal level.
As far as literary tradition goes, we find not a single evidence to suggest any major difference between Illyrian and the language of Epirots.
It has been my intention to negate Greek nationalist claims about Epirus, by pointing to a broad spectrum of sources in support of Illyrian character of Epirots. I have not analyzed the historical scope of the Hellenic influence on the Epirotes. But as of Pound indicated:
‘It was not easy to define Greece as the term was understood in the fifth century. That it was the area within which Greeks lived goes without saying, but the Greek people themselves spoke several dialects, and near the borders of the Greek world these passed into the distinct languages of the ‘barbarian’ peoples like Illyrians and Thracians. Epirus formed no part of Greece, and in the fifth century Greek commerce and culture had made little impression on its tribes. It is doubtful whether the tribes of Aetolia and Acarnania should be considered Greek” (1977: 30).
Even by Strabo’s time Epirots continued to preserve their identity. Strabo indicated, at about the beginning of the new era, that some Macedonia encompasses also the area that extended to Korkyra for the reason of similarity in habits of the population and also for the fact that some of the population was bilingual. It is interesting that Strabo seems to indicate similarities that with inhabitants this area but does not mention Greeks, although by this time the Greek language was in extensive use by the Macedonians. Referring to the indicated bilingualism in Epirus, M. Nilsson wrote:
‘If there were people amongst the Epiriots who spoke two languages, one of the languages must have been Greek which they used in subscriptions, and the other was the local tongue’ (1909: 137).
Bibliography:
Grant, M. 1988: Civilization of the ancient Mediterranean, vol. 1 (Scribner’s).
Hammond, N.G.L. 1967: Epirus (Oxford).
Hornblower, S. 1991: A commentary on Thucydides, vol. I (Oxford).
Gomme, A. W. 1956: Historical Commentary on Thucydides, vol. II (Oxford).
Hornblower, S. 1996: The Oxford classical dictionary, vol. 1 (Oxford University Press).
Hornblower, S. 1996: The Oxford classical dictionary, vol. 1 (Oxford University Press).
Nilsson, M. P. 1986: Cults, myths, oracles, and politics in ancient Greece (P. Åström).
Browning, R. 1983: Medieval and Modern Greek (Cambridge University Press).
Katiçiç, R. 1976: Ancient languages of the Balkans, vol. 1 (Mouton).
Hall, E. 1996: When is a myth not a myth?. Black Athena revisited, 343.
Carney, E.D. 2006: Olympias (Taylor & Francis).
Shuckburgh, E.S. 2010: Herodotus, Book 6 (Cambridge University Press).
Dvornik, F. 1966: Early Christian and Byzantine political philosophy (Dumbarton Oaks).
Williams, H.S. 1926: The historian’s history of the world, vol. 3-4 (The Encyclopaedia britannica co).
Larsen, J.A.O. 1968: Greek federal states (Clarendon P).
Jacques, E.E. 1995: The Albanians: an ethnic history from prehistoric times to the present (McFarland).
Niebuhr, B.G. 1852: Lectures on Ancient History, vol. III (London).
Anthon, Ch. 2005: A classical dictionary (Kessinger Publishing).
Pounds, N. J.G. 1977: An historical geography of Europe (CUP Archive).
Nilsson. M. 1909: Studien zur Geschichte d’altem Apeiros (Lund).