Epirus, its Illyrian affiliation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • George S.
    Senior Member
    • Aug 2009
    • 10116

    #16
    so epirot where was the origin of the illyrians from & why did they cease to exist???
    Also how much of the words in illyrian are preserved in the albanian language today??
    Last edited by George S.; 08-30-2011, 07:12 AM. Reason: edit
    "Ido not want an uprising of people that would leave me at the first failure, I want revolution with citizens able to bear all the temptations to a prolonged struggle, what, because of the fierce political conditions, will be our guide or cattle to the slaughterhouse"
    GOTSE DELCEV

    Comment

    • Epirot
      Member
      • Mar 2010
      • 399

      #17
      Originally posted by George S. View Post
      so epirot where was the origin of the illyrians from & why did they cease to exist???
      Also how much of the words in illyrian are preserved in the albanian language today??
      Hi George,

      I gave here an answer to your questions:
      John Wilkes produced a very informative book about the Illyrians, and his work is considered authorative for Illyrian studies. It is considered to be one of the most in depth descriptions of this ancient people. I will post excerpts gradually, here are some to begin with: (http://img8.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wilkescover
      IF OUR CHRONICLES DO NOT LIE, WE CALL OURSELVES AS EPIROTES!

      Comment

      • George S.
        Senior Member
        • Aug 2009
        • 10116

        #18
        No probs i probably missed it.You have written hell of a lot keeping them greeks down with the truth!Thanks epirot.
        "Ido not want an uprising of people that would leave me at the first failure, I want revolution with citizens able to bear all the temptations to a prolonged struggle, what, because of the fierce political conditions, will be our guide or cattle to the slaughterhouse"
        GOTSE DELCEV

        Comment

        • momce
          Banned
          • Oct 2012
          • 426

          #19
          Interesting it doesnt suprise me once the "ancient greeks" lost their political power all these tribes would inundate "greece" as it was propbably their natural migration area before the "ancient greek" superstructure was established. The greek remains what he has always been a fraud, forgerer etc.
          Last edited by momce; 02-14-2013, 01:37 AM.

          Comment

          • momce
            Banned
            • Oct 2012
            • 426

            #20
            Originally posted by Epirot View Post
            Thanks mate! I think you made some really good points. The Dutch historian Jona Lendering has treated competently that matter. According to him:



            Greek nationalists pathetically emphasize the Greek etymology of certain names found in Illyria, Paeonia, Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace, Minor Asia, etc. They do not hesitate even to subscribe a Hellenic identity to all these regions. Here is a concise list of Hellenized names of Persian kings (just to make Greek nationalists angry):



            The "Hellenizing" machine did its greatest job especially during the Hellenistic period, when many cities throughout Mediterranean got Hellenized names:



            Even the Phoenician colony of Qart-ḥadaš took an "elegant" Greek name "Καρχηδών"!!!!



            You're right. I find pretty hilarious when Greek nationalist historians portray "Tourkokratia" as a time when Greeks were persecuted, denied education, treated as slaves and had their children taken away in order to be turned into janissaries, etc. From all Ottoman subjects, "Greek" speakers were better treated, had many economical and ecclesiastical privileges, etc. I think this is the main reason why most of Greek Ottomans were not sympathizers of Anti-Ottoman uprisings that rose up in Morea and other parts of Rumelia. For instance, the Greek clergy of official church had a hostile stance toward the "revolution" and many of them passed into Ottoman side. This has been stressed out in another thread:

            http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...ead.php?t=5709
            Yes, the greek-speaking ottoman subjects were pampered compared to others this allowed them to gain the upper hand when the Turks were weakened and to become opressors themselves. You could even argue the Turks saved the grecos from their Balkan, Latin and Arab neighbours. Most of what grecos are taught about the Ottoman period is complete nonsense.
            Last edited by momce; 02-19-2013, 01:50 AM.

            Comment

            • momce
              Banned
              • Oct 2012
              • 426

              #21
              Its good job exposing "hellenism" for the leech it is. Thats why no compromises. Anti-greece on all fronts.

              Comment

              • Carlin
                Senior Member
                • Dec 2011
                • 3332

                #22
                Bump. Excellent thread -- a lot of interesting information and quotes.

                The Edinburgh Magazine and Literary Miscellany, Volume 94


                Page 135:

                "The identity of the Thracians and Illyrians is proved by the ancient writers applying, some the former, and others the latter of these epithets, to one and the same people. Thus the Dardanians, described as Illyrians by Strabo and Appian, are denominated Maesians, and, consequently, Thracians, by Dion Cassius; while the Triballi, whom the ancients generally classed among the Thracians, are named Illyrians by Aristophanes and Livy. The Scholiast of Aristophanes, in illustration of a passage in the Clouds, says expressly, that "all the Illyrians are Thracians."

                Comment

                • Epirot
                  Member
                  • Mar 2010
                  • 399

                  #23
                  Originally posted by Carlin View Post
                  The Scholiast of Aristophanes, in illustration of a passage in the Clouds, says expressly, that "all the Illyrians are Thracians."
                  Indeed that quote is very interesting because it's strengthen further the idea of Thracians and Illyrians being basically the same people or closely related to one another. But that idea in terms of linguistics is weakened by modern scholars who refute the 'Thraco-Illyrian' concept. However, I am inclined to adhere that concept by adding further proofs. The very same scholiast stated that even Chaones were of Thracian origin:

                  ...the Chaones, descended, according to the scholiast of Aristophanes, from the Thracians ; according to Aristotle, from the Œnotrii, one of the most ancient tribe on Italy.
                  Both testimonies are fairly interesting because they show how weak is the claim that Epirotes were some kind of archaic Greeks who were left behind during the great migrations. Georgiev and Hammond who subscribe to that idea maintain that during classical period Epirotes just acquired the more sophisticated culture of their southern brethren. What matters the most is the fact that ancients never conceived Epirotes as such. They clearly related Epirotes both to Illyrians and Thracians.

                  Thnx Carlin for participating on this thread which deserve to be further developed. With the exception of Soldier of Macedon, noone showed any interest.
                  IF OUR CHRONICLES DO NOT LIE, WE CALL OURSELVES AS EPIROTES!

                  Comment

                  • George S.
                    Senior Member
                    • Aug 2009
                    • 10116

                    #24
                    if all illyrians are thracians their origin seems to be from the black sea.Their real origins were from sumeria mesopotamia.
                    Yes carlin the illyrians might have been that but they seem to have dissapeard.
                    Fuuly agree with"w how weak is the claim that Epirotes were some kind of archaic Greeks who were left behind during the great migrations. Georgiev and Hammond who subscribe to that idea maintain that during classical period Epirotes just acquired the more sophisticated culture of their "the greeks are not epirotes they were more colonisers.So just because they supposedly spread hellenism doesn't make it greek.The only claim should be that some of it is inhabited by greeks & not the land.Illyrians have a right of claim.
                    Last edited by George S.; 08-25-2013, 04:26 PM.
                    "Ido not want an uprising of people that would leave me at the first failure, I want revolution with citizens able to bear all the temptations to a prolonged struggle, what, because of the fierce political conditions, will be our guide or cattle to the slaughterhouse"
                    GOTSE DELCEV

                    Comment

                    • Carlin
                      Senior Member
                      • Dec 2011
                      • 3332

                      #25
                      Originally posted by Epirot View Post
                      Indeed that quote is very interesting because it's strengthen further the idea of Thracians and Illyrians being basically the same people or closely related to one another. But that idea in terms of linguistics is weakened by modern scholars who refute the 'Thraco-Illyrian' concept. However, I am inclined to adhere that concept by adding further proofs. The very same scholiast stated that even Chaones were of Thracian origin:

                      Both testimonies are fairly interesting because they show how weak is the claim that Epirotes were some kind of archaic Greeks who were left behind during the great migrations. Georgiev and Hammond who subscribe to that idea maintain that during classical period Epirotes just acquired the more sophisticated culture of their southern brethren. What matters the most is the fact that ancients never conceived Epirotes as such. They clearly related Epirotes both to Illyrians and Thracians.

                      Thnx Carlin for participating on this thread which deserve to be further developed. With the exception of Soldier of Macedon, noone showed any interest.
                      Hi Epirot, I am still trying to catch up and read the entire post in detail. You have provided a lot of stuff for reading.

                      Here is some additional thoughts, which I find relevant to this thread.

                      I will not even discuss here the origin of ancient Epirotes, since I am more than convinced that they were of non-Greek stock and very closely related to either Illyrians or Thracians. It also seems evident that the ruling elite(s) of some Epirote tribes underwent a superficial process of hellenization, spoke Greek, and claimed descent from mythical heroes of distant antiquity -- but this hardly made the Epirotes a branch of the Greek people as a whole. At best, the royalty were bilingual and spoke both their own language as well as Greek.

                      Below is concerning the region of Aetolia.

                      One of the quotes from Epirot mentions an Illyrian (non-Greek) presence even in Aetolia and Acarnania:

                      It has been thought by some scholars that Illyrian presence is to be detected even in Aetolia and Acarnania. They based their opinion on thorough analysis of Thucydides's paragraph which recognizes a large non-Greek element among Aetolians:

                      III,94: The Aetolian nation, although numerous and warlike, yet dwelt in un-walled villages scattered far apart, and had nothing but light armor, and might, according to the Messenians, be subdued without much difficulty before succors could arrive. The plan which they recommended was to attack first the Apodotians, next the Ophionians, and after these the Eurytanians, who are the largest tribe in Aetolia, and speak, as is said, a language exceedingly difficult to understand, and eat their flesh raw.


                      1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curetes_(tribe)

                      As per the Wikipedia entry, according to Strabo the Curetes were assigned multiple identities and places of origin (i.e. either Acarnanians, Aetolians, from Crete, or from Euboea). He clarified the identity of the Curetes and regarded them solely as Aetolians. Dionysius of Halicarnassus mentioned the Curetes as the old name of the Aetolians.

                      Do we know more about the (legendary) Curetes? Were they primeval Hellenes or 'barbarians'?

                      It seems evident that Strabo clearly groups and classifies Curetes as one of the 'barbarian' tribes of Aetolia. Some of the tribal names below, are identified as barbarian and non-Greek by various ancient authors.

                      2) Book X, Chapter 2:
                      Part of a complete English translation of Strabo. Site contains many Greek and Latin texts, translations and related material.


                      "The Evenus River begins in the territory of those Bomians who live in the country of the Ophians, the Ophians being an Aetolian tribe (like the Eurytanians and Agraeans and Curetes and others), and flows at first, not through the Curetan country, which is the same as the Pleuronian, but through the more easterly country, past Chalcis and Calydon; and then, bending back towards the plains of Old Pleuron and changing its course to the west, it turns towards its outlets and the south. In earlier times it was called Lycornas."

                      3) Furthermore, in book X, Chapter 3, Strabo seems to draw a parallel between the Curetes and Abantes.

                      Part of a complete English translation of Strabo. Site contains many Greek and Latin texts, translations and related material.


                      "... the Curetes settled at Chalcis, but since they were continually at war for the Lelantine Plain and the enemy would catch them by the front hair and drag them down, he says, they let their hair grow long behind but cut short the part in front, and because of this they were called "Curetes," from the cut of their hair*, and they then migrated to Aetolia, and, after taking possession of the region round Pleuron, called the people who lived on the far side of the Acheloüs "Acarnanians," because they kept their heads unshorn."

                      * - "Cura." From this passage one might identify the "Curetes" with the "Abantes" (see 10.1.3), whom Homer speaks of as "letting their hair grow long behind" (Iliad 2.542). According to a scholium (on Iliad l.c.), the Euboeans wore the hair long behind "for the sake of manly strength."

                      4) Who were the Abantes?



                      Aristotle states that the Abantes were Thracians from Abae in Phokis (Phocis). The Abantes were definitely not Ionians themselves, but many ended up assimilated into the Ionian population.

                      Brief conclusion:
                      From the above quotes it looks like the term "Curetes" was a legendary (ancient) name of the Aetolians as a whole. According to Strabo, the Curetes were one of many tribes of the Aetolian nation - these tribes were regarded as non-Greek by several ancient authors (Agraeans, Eurytanians, etc.). In addition to this, there was some sort of connection between the Curetes and Abantes; and Abantes were of Thracian stock. It would appear then that a large part of Aetolians were of non-Greek stock.

                      PS:

                      I am not endorsing the following article, simply adding it here as reference. In it, it states on page 17, that the Greeks themselves believed that Elis was colonized by the Aetolians. Aetolians always supported Elis in her Peloponnesian conflicts.



                      Map of Ancient Peloponnese, and location of Elis:
                      Last edited by Carlin; 08-26-2013, 01:24 PM.

                      Comment

                      • George S.
                        Senior Member
                        • Aug 2009
                        • 10116

                        #26
                        the question goes begging how much of the epirote population has illyrian blood in them today ? as the illyrians all but dissapeard.I saw some thread that showed genetics something like 10% is illyrian. seems Hardly enough.
                        "Ido not want an uprising of people that would leave me at the first failure, I want revolution with citizens able to bear all the temptations to a prolonged struggle, what, because of the fierce political conditions, will be our guide or cattle to the slaughterhouse"
                        GOTSE DELCEV

                        Comment

                        • Epirot
                          Member
                          • Mar 2010
                          • 399

                          #27
                          The debate whether Epirotes were Greek or not is closely related to Aetolians. I seem to remember vaguely a passage I've read on Aetolians (I could not find it) who got mentioned first by Homer. It stated that Homer knew little of Aetolia with the exception of some coastal cities, inferring that the inland was entirely engulfed from northern invasions, most likely from Illyrians and Thracians. I made a quick search and found some interesting stuff:

                          . In the fifth century, however, the Aetolians had no direct access to the Corinthian Gulf and the cities Homer mentions as Aetolian, such as Kalydon and Pleuron, were not pari of Aetolian territory, but belong to coastal region Aeolis"

                          Klaus Freitag - 2005, page 352
                          So it does seem likely that Aetolia in the broader sense of word was not Greek with the exception of its shores who were known to Homer. If the events as described in Iliad's Homer reflect the situation of 8th century B.C, then we may postulate some points:

                          * The Greek world in Homeric times (8th century) is confined basically to those countries who participated in Trojan war (The Catalog of Ships). In fact the Homeric events truly embodies the colonizing tendency of Greeks who either expanded toward East and west. Precisely at that time or earlier, the shores of Aetolia were colonized but the inland was fully unknown.

                          * Over time, Greeks could not maintain relations with their colonies in Aetolia since that region was engulfed by the barbarian northerners - the very same movement which brought Dorians in the historical scene.

                          Homer only mentions five Aetolian cities, and all of these are near the coast, bounded on the east by Acarnania and on the west by Western Locris.

                          Eumenes of Cardia: A Greek Among Macedonians, Edward Anson - 2004 - Page 212
                          I have no doubt that Illyrians had already established into Aetolia, whose vestiges were to be found even in the Hellenistic times (remember the Philip V speech on Aetolians whose Hellenicity was seriously challenged). I'm perplexed to know if the Illyrian presence (beside literary tradition) can be demonstrated linguistically? Kirsten was of opinion that Aetolians were by and large Illyrians (whom he accredited as the founders of Elis?):

                          He emphasizes the historical elements in the Iliad and the mythological stories and seems convinced that Aetolians of Homer were of a totally other race ('ein ganz anderer Stamm') than the Aetolians of historical times, who had only their name in common. He concluded that after the war between the original Aetolians and the Curetes ('der alteste Krieg auf eurpaischem Boden), the latter ruled over the Aetolian lands until they were driven away by halfbarbarian mountaineers who named themselves after the ancient inhabitants.

                          [...]It seems that the final version of Kirsten's explanation for the 'Aeolis' question is that one should distinguish the ''Illyrian'' founders of Calydon and Pleuron (who moved later to Elis, but they are the ones called Aetolians in the Iliad), from the...

                          Historia : Zeitschrift fur alte Geschichte, 1988, pp. 303-304
                          The above citations are excellent but I could not see further the text because of not having full access on that book. I'd be grateful if anybody can find the whole text.

                          Greeks have ascribed more Hellenicity to the Aetolians very lately. When the city-states were endangered by northern invasions, the prestige of Aetolians was in its nadir. When they routed the Celtic hordes, Aetolians got the title as the protectors of Greece. Here is what a certain Greek stated:

                          Next, after a passage devoted to the misdeeds of the Aetolians, Lyciscus asks the pertinent question: if we owe thanks to Aetolia for saving Delphi from the barbarians, what do we owe to Macedonia, which has perpetually protected the the northern frontiers and so acted as a bulwark for Greece?
                          Greeks did not hesitate to ascribe some Hellenicity to Macedonia (even though it has aroused ethnic opposition among Greeks) as long as the later served to counter the potential of any Illyrian or Thracian invasion which would be devastating to Greece. At the same token, Greeks were willing to accredit Aetolians as the champions of Greek liberty as long as they fought marauding Celts. For some time, Aetolia withstood Rome but later it sided up with romans.
                          Last edited by Epirot; 08-27-2013, 04:29 PM.
                          IF OUR CHRONICLES DO NOT LIE, WE CALL OURSELVES AS EPIROTES!

                          Comment

                          • TheNikoWhiteIch
                            Member
                            • Oct 2014
                            • 111

                            #28
                            This is a very interesting thread. It's refreshing to hear different opinions on the origin of the Epirotes besides those readily available on Wikipedia (i.e., that they were some North-Western Greeks). I found a text that refers to the Epirotes as Pelasgians that became "barbarized" through contact with the Illyrians:

                            The inhabitants of Epirus were scarcely considered Hellenic. The population in early times had been Pelasgic. The oracle at Dodona was always called Pelasgic, and many names of places in Epirus were also borne by the Pelasgic cities of the opposite coast of Italy. But irruptions of Illyrians had barbarized the whole nation; and though Herodotus speaks of Thesprotia as a part of Hellas, he refers rather 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. In their mode of cutting the hair, in their costume, and in their language, the Epirotes resembled the Macedonians, who were an Illyrian race. Theopompus, cited by Strabo, divided the inhabitants of Epirus into fourteen different tribes, of which the most renowned were the Chaonians, Thesprotians, and Molossians. The Molossians claimed descent from Molossus, son of Neoptolemus and Andromaché. Tradition reported that the son of Achilles, Neoptolemus or Pyrrhus, as he is also called, having crossed from Thessaly into Epirus on his return from the siege of Troy, was induced, by the advice of an oracle, to settle in the latter country, where, having subjugated a considerable extent of territory, he transmitted his newly formed kingdom to Molossus, his son by Andromaché, from whom his subjects derived the name of Molossi.
                            Source: here

                            Now, one particular reason that this is of interest to me is that I've seen texts that refer the tribes of Macedonia to Molossians, while other tribes are referred to the Illyrians. I think we can establish that the Epirots, Illyrians, and some Thracians were the tribes that went on to become the 1st "Macedones;" Therefore showing the non-Hellenic origin of the Macedonians and affirming the connection between the Macedonians and other barbarians. This has been an interesting thread!

                            Comment

                            • Carlin
                              Senior Member
                              • Dec 2011
                              • 3332

                              #29
                              Amphilochia was the name of a territory in northwestern Greece, east of the Gulf of Ambrakia. The tribe which inhabited the territory was called the Amphilochoi.

                              Amphilochia was the name of a territory in northwestern Greece, east of the Gulf of Ambrakia. The tribe which inhabited the territory was called the Amphilochoi.


                              MAP


                              2.68.1 About the same time towards the close of the summer, the Ambraciot forces, with a number of barbarians that they had raised, marched against the Amphilochian Argos and the rest of that country.

                              2.68.2 The origin of their enmity against the Argives was this. This Argos and the rest of Amphilochia were colonized by Amphilochus, son of Amphiaraus. Dissatisfied with the state of affairs at home on his return thither after the Trojan war, he built this city in the Ambracian gulf, and named it Argos after his own country.

                              2.68.4 This was the largest town in Amphilochia, and its inhabitants the most powerful.

                              2.68.5 Under the pressure of misfortune many generations afterwards, they called in the Ambraciots, their neighbors on the Amphilochian border, to join their colony; and it was by this union with the Ambraciots that they learnt their present Hellenic speech, the rest of the Amphilochians being barbarians.


                              Comment

                              • Carlin
                                Senior Member
                                • Dec 2011
                                • 3332

                                #30




                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X