Origins of Ancient Greece

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Pelister
    Senior Member
    • Sep 2008
    • 2742

    #16
    Here is something interesting that Tomovsk posted; probably relevent here also.

    Just want to study this subject a bit and possibly Spartan society if the conversation becomes deep enough. I admire the Spartans and their valour, they truly had a great story to tell. Didn't know where to post this, the exposing lies & propaganda section would not be the right place for it, so I will leave it here, and I


    " there is also another circumstance that contributes not a little to my conviction of the weakness of ancient times. before the trojan war there is no indication of any common action in hellas, nor indeed of the universal prevalence of the name ( hellas / hellenes ); on the contrary, before the time of hellen son of deucalion, no such name existed, but the country went by the names of 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.
    [ the landmark thucydides, page 4 , 1.3.1 - 1.3.3 ]

    Comment

    • Daskalot
      Senior Member
      • Sep 2008
      • 4345

      #17
      Black Athena is a good read on the subject.
      Macedonian Truth Organisation

      Comment

      • tomovsk
        Junior Member
        • Apr 2010
        • 24

        #18
        something i came across :

        " There is also a version that Lydians once lived in continental Greece or on the Aegean islands. However, when Lydian and Carian inscriptions and even texts were found and deciphered, after the Hittite language was transliterated and identified, linguists realized that both Asia Minor languages were Indo-European. Though Carian was maybe the most influenced by the aborigines who inhabited these lands before Indo-Europeans came, still it keeps many common features with Hittite and Luwian. And as for some traces of the language similar to Lydian or Carian, in Greece or Crete, many think they just represent the same substratum language which influenced Carian itself. In other words, these traces in Greece are not Carian in fact, but the remains of the language spoken both in Greece and in Caria before Indo-Europeans occupied these countries".

        Comment

        • Carlin
          Senior Member
          • Dec 2011
          • 3332

          #19
          Originally posted by Napoleon View Post
          Some primary source quotes...

          Furthermore...

          In regards to 'Black Athena', it's author Martin Bernal believes that ancient Greece evolved as a result of Egyptian (Danaos), Phoenician (Kadmos), and Anatolian (Pelops) invasion and colonisation over the indigenous Pelasgian population. This theory was also widely believed by the ancient Greeks themselves as evidenced by the above qoutes. Bernal also states that unfortunately, the German, English and French scolars of the 18th century fabricated the racist 'European' 'Aryan' origin for ancient Greek civilisation that is still currently taught today, thus denying ancient Greece's true Afro-Asiatic roots.
          This is a great summary of Bernal's thesis.

          In the 15th century BC a new western power emerges in the Hittite documents - that of Ahhiyawa, which Bernal equates with Achaeans. [Homer's name for Achaeans and their allies against Trojans; no "Hellenes" are mentioned in Hittite documents].

          Bernal further states that Achaeans were a mixture of West Anatolians and Pelasgians. 'Danaans' are the inhabitans of the kingdoms established at the end of the 18th century BC, by the original Hyksos 'heroes' - Achaeans are those conquered by the Anatolian dynasties.

          The Proto-Greek language took shape by 1500s BC (as per Bernal), as a result of mixing of various cultures and nations: Pelasgians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, West Anatolians.

          Comment

          • Angliski
            Banned
            • Jul 2012
            • 46

            #20
            The ancient Greeks were, naturally enough, a demographic synthesis of "indigenous" peoples, Greek-speakers who migrated from the north and other peoples from the surrounding areas. Their culture, like all cultures, had some roots and connections with the cultures they had had come in contact with. All cultures, to this day, influence each other when they come into contact.

            As for the "African roots" of the singularity of Greek culture, simply look at pictures of ancient Egypt and compare them with those of ancient Greek society. Compare ancient Greek religion, literature, philosophy, writing, language and alphabet with that of ancient Egypt and there is not the remotest connection. They seem to come from different planets. Compare ancient Greek with Roman society and the similarities are striking.

            Bernal's thesis had its 15 minutes of notoriety and was quickly dismissed and discarded. Rescuing it from the dustbins of historical writing is a self-defeating and pointless exercise.

            Comment

            • Carlin
              Senior Member
              • Dec 2011
              • 3332

              #21
              Let's forget Bernal. Let's take a look at what Herodotus himself had to say about these matters.



              - I therefore maintain that Melampus, who was a wise man, and had acquired the art of divination, having become acquainted with the worship of Bacchus through knowledge derived from Egypt, introduced it into Greece, with a few slight changes, at the same time that he brought in various other practices. For I can by no means allow that it is by mere coincidence that the Bacchic ceremonies in Greece are so nearly the same as the Egyptian- they would then have been more Greek in their character, and less recent in their origin. Much less can I admit that the Egyptians borrowed these customs, or any other, from the Greeks. My belief is that Melampus got his knowledge of them from Cadmus the Tyrian, and the followers whom he brought from Phoenicia into the country which is now called Boeotia.

              Almost all the names of the gods came into Greece from Egypt. My inquiries prove that they were all derived from a foreign source, and my opinion is that Egypt furnished the greater number. For with the exception of Neptune and the Dioscuri, whom I mentioned above, and Juno, Vesta, Themis, the Graces, and the Nereids, the other gods have been known from time immemorial in Egypt. This I assert on the authority of the Egyptians themselves. The gods, with whose names they profess themselves unacquainted, the Greeks received, I believe, from the Pelasgi, except Neptune. Of him they got their knowledge from the Libyans, by whom he has been always honoured, and who were anciently the only people that had a god of the name.

              - Besides these which have been here mentioned, there are many other practices whereof I shall speak hereafter, which the Greeks have borrowed from Egypt. The peculiarity, however, which they observe in their statues of Mercury they did not derive from the Egyptians, but from the Pelasgi; from them the Athenians first adopted it, and afterwards it passed from the Athenians to the other Greeks. For just at the time when the Athenians were entering into the Hellenic body, the Pelasgi came to live with them in their country, whence it was that the latter came first to be regarded as Greeks. Whoever has been initiated into the mysteries of the Cabiri will understand what I mean. The Samothracians received these mysteries from the Pelasgi, who, before they went to live in Attica, were dwellers in Samothrace, and imparted their religious ceremonies to the inhabitants. The Athenians, then, who were the first of all the Greeks to make their statues of Mercury in this way, learnt the practice from the Pelasgians; and by this people a religious account of the matter is given, which is explained in the Samothracian mysteries.

              - Now the Phoenicians who came with Cadmus, and to whom the Gephyraei belonged, introduced into Greece upon their arrival a great variety of arts, among the rest that of writing, whereof the Greeks till then had, as I think, been ignorant. And originally they shaped their letters exactly like all the other Phoenicians, but afterwards, in course of time, they changed by degrees their language, and together with it the form likewise of their characters. Now the Greeks who dwelt about those parts at that time were chiefly the Ionians. The Phoenician letters were accordingly adopted by them, but with some variation in the shape of a few, and so they arrived at the present use, still calling the letters Phoenician, as justice required, after the name of those who were the first to introduce them into Greece.

              - Thus much is related by the Lacedaemonians, but not by any of the other Greeks; in what follows I give the tradition of the Greeks generally. The kings of the Dorians (they say)- counting up to Perseus, son of Danae, and so omitting the god- are rightly given in the common Greek lists, and rightly considered to have been Greeks themselves; for even at this early time they ranked among that people. I say "up to Perseus," and not further, because Perseus has no mortal father by whose name he is called, as Hercules has in Amphitryon; whereby it appears that I have reason on my side, and am right in saying, "up to Perseus." If we follow the line of Danad, daughter of Acrisius, and trace her progenitors, we shall find that the chiefs of the Dorians are really genuine Egyptians. In the genealogies here given I have followed the common Greek accounts.

              Enough however of this subject. How it came to pass that Egyptians obtained the kingdoms of the Dorians, and what they did to raise themselves to such a position, these are questions concerning which, as they have been treated by others, I shall say nothing. I proceed to speak of points on which no other writer has touched.

              - These are the twelve divisions of what is now Achaea, and was formerly
              Ionia; and it was owing to their coming from a country so divided
              that the Ionians, on reaching Asia, founded their twelve States: for
              it is the height of folly to maintain that these Ionians are more
              Ionian than the rest, or in any respect better born
              , since the truth
              is that no small portion of them were Abantians from Euboea, who are
              not even Ionians in name
              ; and, besides, there were mixed up with the
              emigration Minyae from Orchomenus, Cadmeians, Dryopians, Phocians
              from the several cities of Phocis, Molossians, Arcadian Pelasgi, Dorians
              from Epidaurus, and many other distinct tribes. Even those who came
              from the Prytaneum of Athens, and reckon themselves the purest Ionians
              of all, brought no wives with them to the new country, but married
              Carian girls, whose fathers they had slain
              .

              Comment

              • Carlin
                Senior Member
                • Dec 2011
                • 3332

                #22
                Architecture Phoenicians Influences - Temples

                A theory cited by many modern scholars and that cannot be entirely dismissed is that the first Greek temples developed out of the early Mycenaean megaron house, and it is true that the basic architectural arrangement is similar. Indeed, the Samian Heraion c800 BC, the first Greek monumental stone temple, resembled the megaron house found at Chios. Though possibly based on the megaron pattern, early temples are on a grander scale and similar to those found in Egypt. The Heraion was a Hekatompedon, which established the canonical length of a hundred feet. At the back of the cella, the stone base of the cult statue was placed slightly off centre. Later a wooden peristyle was added, to be replaced by stone in the 7th century, when there was a rebirth of monumental Greek sculpture. Stone foundations are typically found on early Greek temples, whereas the upper layers and columns are of less durable building materials such as wood or clay. We can look to the monumental temples of Egypt as the origin of these foreign influences in architecture, with the Phoenicians as intermediaries.
                The architecture of the Near East, especially that of the western Semites, presented a united front which imposed standards of architecture and divine iconography on the Aegean. Even back in the 13th to 12th centuries these architectural styles were adopted by the Mycenaeans. Western Semitic dominance can be seen from the sites of Zinjirli, Tell Halaf and Karatepe, where archaeological finds show that through the 8th and 9th centuries much of northern Syria and southern Anatolia underwent strong Semitic influences. The centre of this was the Phoenician lands and from here new motifs were spread, though with such continuity that the art of the first millennium owed much to the second.

                The later style of early Phoenician and Phoenician-influenced temples can be seen from the 14th, 13th and 10th centuries. The 13th century temple at Alalakh had one antechamber and a cella, whereas both the 14th century temple of Hazor and the 10th century temple of Solomon had two antechambers before you reached the room at the rear. The temple of Solomon was long, with a courtyard situated in front containing a font or bowl of lustral water and an altar for sacrifice. The temple door was flanked by two named bronze columns. The temple was in three parts and a priest would pass further back into the temple until reaching the Most Holy area at the back - a dark, square room reached by a door covered by a curtain. The central room was rectangular and held a golden altar and cedar table. Before the Greeks anthropomorphised their gods, the Greek world knew no temples such as these, although they were common in the Near East. Thus the Greek temple as the home of the god that held the cult image in the naos was a creation of the 8th century.

                Architecture and temple building was an area where Phoenician influences could certainly be felt and "The Greeks themselves traced much of their originals to Eastern origins, to Egypt and Phoenician communities of the Levant." The temples of the Near East were great stone and brick affairs with the lower courses generally being of stone elaborated with orthostats and friezes. It was on the Greek Islands that some of the first temples were seen, either built by Phoenicians or by those who met or lived with these traders; on Cyprus, Greeks, Phoenicians and others lived side by side. The early architecture of the settlers in Cyprus was a form of monumental architecture as can be seen by their temple complexes at Palaipaphos, Kition and Enkomi. The Mycenaeans’ use of Canaanite forms of temple building was reinforced by later Phoenician settlers and from the late Cypriot II and III periods, Kition reflects these earlier influences. Kition was a well-established Phoenician settlement by the 9th century, with a temple to a fertility goddess whom the Phoenicians identified with their goddess Astarte. Another Cyprian temple, that of Aphrodite in Paphos, was established by Phoenicians from Askalon. The Phoenician presence arrived here at the beginning of the first millennium, but the temple site was first established at the end of the Mycenaean period. When the Phoenicians arrived on Cyprus, Cypriot traditions were submerged beneath those of the Orient, and sunk still further into oblivion with the arrival of western Greeks, as Cyprus became an intermediary place between East and West.

                Comment

                • Angliski
                  Banned
                  • Jul 2012
                  • 46

                  #23
                  As we said, Carlin, no culture is a result of parthenogenesis and all cultures are influenced by those they come into contact with. The Greeks most certainly were influenced and borrowed from surrounding older cultures. Out of this influence the Greeks created their own individual culture which in turn made its contribution to others. Find another "Oedipus Rex", discover a set of Platonic Diologues in Egypt, unearth a Hermes of Praxiteles in Lebanon, or a Hitite copy of Pricles' Oration to the Marathon dead (to list just a few) and you will be on to Greek forgeries.

                  The French and the Spanish wrote plays before Shakespeare and Shakespeare based some of his plays on Greek and Roman history, but none of this took one iota away from Shakespeare's originality and genius.

                  The archeological and literary evidence for the originality and contributions of ancient Greek culture are overwhelming and accepted all around the world. Best of luck in your pursuit to deny it, however, if that's the way you want to spend your time and energy.

                  Comment

                  • Carlin
                    Senior Member
                    • Dec 2011
                    • 3332

                    #24
                    Originally posted by Angliski View Post
                    As we said, Carlin, no culture is a result of parthenogenesis and all cultures are influenced by those they come into contact with. The Greeks most certainly were influenced and borrowed from surrounding older cultures. Out of this influence the Greeks created their own individual culture which in turn made its contribution to others. Find another "Oedipus Rex", discover a set of Platonic Diologues in Egypt, unearth a Hermes of Praxiteles in Lebanon, or a Hitite copy of Pricles' Oration to the Marathon dead (to list just a few) and you will be on to Greek forgeries.

                    The French and the Spanish wrote plays before Shakespeare and Shakespeare based some of his plays on Greek and Roman history, but none of this took one iota away from Shakespeare's originality and genius.

                    The archeological and literary evidence for the originality and contributions of ancient Greek culture are overwhelming and accepted all around the world. Best of luck in your pursuit to deny it, however, if that's the way you want to spend your time and energy.
                    Agreed, 100%.

                    The problem lies in modern Greek historiography and other western scholars (mostly from the 18th-19th c.) who DO BELIEVE that ancient Hellenic culture and civilization WAS a result of PARTHENOGENESIS. Many have made careers attempting to minimize, or remove, the influence of Phoenicians or Egyptians on ancient Hellenes. Bernal is not so much of a 'weirdo' you believe him to be; his thesis deals with arguing FOR the "Ancient model" AGAINST the "Aryan model". I will spare you the details though...

                    A lot of modern Greek nationals absolutely deny any foreign influence in the formation of ancient Hellenic civilization and people: these beliefs are a direct result of the schooling system in Greece, which is why I stated that the problem lies in modern Greek historiography and education.

                    Anyway, I agree that ancient Hellenes created and possessed their own original culture.

                    Comment

                    • Carlin
                      Senior Member
                      • Dec 2011
                      • 3332

                      #25


                      Who created the “veil of ignorance” that guards over the separation of ancient Greece and Egypt as a scientific Iron Curtain? The answer is to be found at the end of the 19th century, and the racial situation of that era. The central question is what race the ancient Egyptians were. The relationship between blacks and white Europeans was a powerful social issue in the United States and Great Britain; in 1879, Britain ruled one quarter of the world. It was at this time that scholars began to awaken to the realisation that the Egyptians possessed a powerful culture; it was at this time that Greece was identified as the cradle of western civilisation. It were largely white scholars who would do anything to make sure that blacks would find no place in history… after all, it could lead to serious social consequences. Blacks surely could never be at the roots of that wonderful Greek civilisation? That “had” to be erroneous. It was simply impossible…
                      However, the argument was difficult to maintain, and even the myth of Atlantis was called into play to try and salvage the problematic situation: if Atlantis had existed, it would have been a “white race”, and it was this “white race” that had settled into Egypt and had given the native black people its civilisation, its culture and its philosophy. Problem solved…

                      This attitude is the opposite of the Greek attitude, however difficult it is to believe, after more than a century of brainwashing about ancient Greek thinking. The Greeks had no problem in stating their knowledge originated from an African origin; nowhere do they make references to “white deities” or “white leaders” amongst the black culture that gave them their philosophy.
                      Poe and other analysts argue that modern archaeology, shaped as it is by western thinking, cannot live with the concept that the Greek culture – and western civilisation as a whole – is a legacy of black Egypt. This has resulted in almost hilarious debates as to how the ancient Egyptians could not possibly be African – or a more general attitude that seems to prevail today, which leaves their racial identity unspecified. After all, the Arab race is now the predominant race in Egypt (specifically in the north), and references such as “our ancestors” often imply that the ancient Egyptians were Arabs.

                      The facts are vastly different and radically speak against any such revisionist thinking. The Greek city of Thebes was founded by two brothers, Amphion and Zethos. They were claimed to be the sons of Zeus, with a mortal, known as Antiope. It was a typically Egyptian concept for the king to state that he was born of god. This was purely symbolic – but it should be realised that it was symbolic for the ancient Greeks also.
                      In 1971, Greek archaeologist Theodore Spyropoulos began his dig on the Amphion hill, which was the legendary burial place of the twins. He soon discovered a stone chamber, deep within the funerary mound. It contained jewellery, including four golden hangers in the shape of lilies… a typically Egyptian motif. He also discovered a vaulted tunnel that ran in several directions. Spyropoulos labelled it a “typically Egyptian tomb”. Further research showed that the tomb dated back to 2900-2400 BC, placing this Greek discovery as a veritable anomaly: there was no Greek civilisation at this time… though there was already an Egyptian civilisation.
                      It was not the first archaeological discovery that showed such evidence. Greek legend holds that an Egyptian king Danaos landed in Apobathmi, in the Peloponnesus with a great fleet. He made himself ruler and ordered the natives to call themselves "Danaans". Homer states that the Greeks do not call themselves Greeks or Hellenes, but Danaans. Coincidence? In Graeco-Roman times, tourists made pilgrimages to Apobathmi and even went as far as to argue that the exact date of the landing can be dated to 1511 BC, using an inscription on the Parian Marble.
                      Several Egyptian pharaohs claimed ownership over “Haunebut”, which means "Behind the Islands." The Greek portion of the Rosetta Stone text clearly translates the phrase Haunebu – meaning "the people of Haunebut" – as Greek or Hellene. And Greece does lie "behind the islands" of the Aegean Sea, when viewed from Egypt. Thutmosis III boasted that he had "trussed… the Haunebut" and struck those that lived "in the midst of the Great Green Sea" (the Mediterranean Sea). In a single year, he claimed to have collected 36,692 deben of gold from his conquered subjects – the equivalent of three metric tons – of which 27,000 kilos is specifically said to have come from the Asian provinces and the Isles in the Midst of the Great Green Sea (the Greek islands).
                      In 1946, Spyridon Marinatos, best known for his work on Thera (Akrotiri), had found a series of grain silos in Boiotia. Marinatos also believed that the Mycenaeans helped the Egyptians to expel the Hyksos and were rewarded with the gold that has been found in the so-called shaft tombs in Mycenae. These tombs date from the first 80 years after the expulsion of the Hyksos. Some tombs show Egyptian influences, although the Mycenaeans were much more careless with their dead than the Egyptians. On the topic of the grain silos, Marinatos stated that they greatly resembled Egyptian silos. Of course, his colleagues were unable to accept such a comparison.
                      One of these silos measured 30 metres high and 100 metres wide. The entire grain production of Argolid could be stored in this complex; only an organised state could and would resort to such a mechanism. But Greece did not have an organised state when the silos were built and used. The logical conclusion that the Greek land was used as a supply of grain that was exported to Egypt was “of course” impossible, for we all “know” that Greece’s cultural development was completely independent of anything that happened anywhere else in the world…

                      Comment

                      • Risto the Great
                        Senior Member
                        • Sep 2008
                        • 15658

                        #26
                        Now you've done it. The Greeks are going to want the gold back from the Egyptians as well as the Germans now.
                        Risto the Great
                        MACEDONIA:ANHEDONIA
                        "Holding my breath for the revolution."

                        Hey, I wrote a bestseller. Check it out: www.ren-shen.com

                        Comment

                        • Angliski
                          Banned
                          • Jul 2012
                          • 46

                          #27
                          To the best of my knowledge, Carlin, modern Greek historians have an interpretation of Greek history that falls within universally accepted scholarship. Like in all countries, there are no doubt some free-lance Greek idiots (Golden Dawn) who babble-on with all kinds of insecurities and savage nonsense. They are discredited simply by speaking their minds. It's best to turn one's attention to serious scholarship. That's where mutual profit lies, don't you think?

                          Comment

                          • Angliski
                            Banned
                            • Jul 2012
                            • 46

                            #28
                            More, like all modern states, Greece consists of a hodge-podge of people from all surrounding cultures, Slavs, Albanians, Gypses, Turks, Arabs and stray dogs ( to name just a few) who have been forged, forcibly or not, into a common culture. There is an interpretation of a nation that goes something like, " A nation consists of a people who have a common misunderstanding of their origins." it applies to all nations bar none. I can't imagine a Greek historian disagreeing with that. And they don't to my knowledge. During. My years in Greece, I never heard anyone spout "direct descendants of the ancients" nonsense, although I wouldn't put anything past the Golden Sunset idiots.

                            Comment

                            • makgerman
                              Member
                              • Nov 2009
                              • 145

                              #29
                              Originally posted by Angliski View Post
                              More, like all modern states, Greece consists of a hodge-podge of people from all surrounding cultures, Slavs, Albanians, Gypses, Turks, Arabs and stray dogs ( to name just a few) who have been forged, forcibly or not, into a common culture. There is an interpretation of a nation that goes something like, " A nation consists of a people who have a common misunderstanding of their origins." it applies to all nations bar none. I can't imagine a Greek historian disagreeing with that. And they don't to my knowledge. During. My years in Greece, I never heard anyone spout "direct descendants of the ancients" nonsense, although I wouldn't put anything past the Golden Sunset idiots.
                              Well that's rare for someone who knows many Greeks. I have met many here in Australia and I'd say 95% claim they're "pure"

                              Comment

                              • Bill77
                                Senior Member
                                • Oct 2009
                                • 4545

                                #30
                                Originally posted by Angliski View Post
                                During. My years in Greece, I never heard anyone spout "direct descendants of the ancients" nonsense
                                Honestly, did you ever pose that question to anyone for you to get an answer wherever they thought they were "direct descendants of the ancients"?

                                If so, How would such a subject come up and why would this question by you have been asked. Seriously, i am starting to believe you are making things up as you go.
                                http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?p=120873#post120873

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X