Sparta and the Spartans - The History

[tomovsk]

Homer's inaccuracy and post-fact terminology aside, to those warriors from Mycenae that fought the Trojans, the term 'Hellene' was unknown and unheard of.

just for truth's sake the hellenes were mentioned as followers of achilles along with the myrmidons in the iliad ( book 2 , line 780 of the fagles translation )

edit : oops, i see it was already mentioned

[Soldier of Macedon]

As for the etymology of the word Sparta, I came across a theory that is not far off of what Tomvsk stated earlier in the thread -

http://books.google.ca/books?id=uK8szXLlvjoC&pg=PA86&dq=Mycenaean+Lakonia&hl=en&ei=lF82TOSkHYH98AbN16ioAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Mycenaean%20Lakonia&f=false

Ill see what else I can come up with.

Is that cited anywhere during classical times?

[tomovsk]

i think this might complicate things, but apparently sparta was an amalgamation of 4 villages - limnai, konoura, pitana and mesoa. (The Spartan Army J. F. Lazenby pp63-67)
trying to cite a primary source is proving difficult.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Is that what Thucydides meant? Here is what he actually says:

So it is not in reference to "Hellenic unity", it is in reference to a common action in a particular region - a region that later came to be known as 'Hellas'. That is what he meant. Homer's inaccuracy and post-fact terminology aside, to those warriors from Mycenae that fought the Trojans, the term 'Hellene' was unknown and unheard of.

Similar is the case with the Paeonian-Thracian population and their common action in a particular region - a region that later came to be known as 'Macedonia'. Everybody that took part in the battle from that region, fought on the Trojan side.

According to the ancient mythologies, what century exactly was Deucalion alive?

And in answer to my own question, here is what has been suggested with regard to Deucalion's era:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deucalion

Deucalion's flood may be dated in the chronology of Saint Jerome to ca. 1460 BC.

[Spartan]

Is that cited anywhere during classical times?

I dont think so, its a theory based on the language of the time I would think.
I will keep looking.

i think this might complicate things, but apparently sparta was an amalgamation of 4 villages - limnai, konoura, pitana and mesoa. (The Spartan Army J. F. Lazenby pp63-67)
trying to cite a primary source is proving difficult.

I never heard of 'Mesoa", I was under the impression "Amyclae", along with the other 3 were the original towns Sparta consisted of.

And yes, finding a contempoporary source about things from 2000 years ago will not prove easy.

[Serdarot]

so, if we take as very strong possibility that in 14th - 15th century BC some kind of Flood happened, couse it is supported from several sources...

and use some logic

we will come to result that part* of the Aegean Coast was destroed by that flood

and than take a look on something what i already posted on this forum

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Neubauer

Friedrich Neubauer, Bernhard Seyfert, Lehrbuch der Geschichte 1. Teil (1922) (used on universities and other schools)

describing the Greek Colonization, 8th century BC... saylors and traders from Africa and Asia settling in several locations in the Mediteranian Area, like Atina and other... changing the society, creating NEW "Nation", Culture...





and add some Plato

Her. What do you say of pyr (fire) and udor (water)?

Soc. I am at a loss how to explain pyr; either the muse of Euthyphro has deserted me, or there is some very great difficulty in the word. Please, however, to note the contrivance which I adopt whenever I am in a difficulty of this sort.

Her. What is it?

Soc. I will tell you; but I should like to know first whether you can tell me what is the meaning of the pyr?

Her. Indeed I cannot.

Soc. Shall I tell you what I suspect to be the true explanation of this and several other words?- My belief is that they are of foreign origin. For the Hellenes, especially those who were under the dominion of the barbarians, often borrowed from them.

Her. What is the inference?

Soc. Why, you know that any one who seeks to demonstrate the fitness of these names according to the Hellenic language, and not according to the language from which the words are derived, is rather likely to be at fault.

Her. Yes, certainly.

Soc. Well then, consider whether this pyr is not foreign; for the word is not easily brought into relation with the Hellenic tongue, and the Phrygians may be observed to have the same word slightly changed, just as they have udor (water) and kunes (dogs), and many other words.

Her. That is true.

we come to what conclusion?

flood, in the coastal area destruction, collonized, new "nation" and culture, with segments of the native, pre-settler, pre-greek culture / language / everything...?

* = about the level of destruction is usseles to speculate, but if something is certain, is that on the High Mountains in Macedonia, probably lot of the population could survive the flood

[Spartan]

as the Thracian presence in the Balkans pre-dates that of the Greeks.

When is Thracian presence first attested to?

Prior to the Dorian invasion, I don't think the people of that area were Hellenic in either speech or identity. Would you agree?

The Mycaeneans and Dorians both spoke a Greek language.
How did you come to the conclusion they spoke different languages?

This means that the 'Achaeans' that Homer wrote about were not of the same linguistic group as the 'Dorians', correct?

They spoke dialects of the same language.
I would think that this would qualify as same linguistic group.

[Soldier of Macedon]

When is Thracian presence first attested to?

Homer.

The Mycaeneans and Dorians both spoke a Greek language.

Substantiate your claim by explaining the methodology used by Chadwick and Ventris to 'decipher' Linear B, and produce comparative sentences between the 'deciphered' Mycenaean language and the language you speak today, so we can see how 'Greek' it really was (assuming that the 'deciphered' inscriptions are correct).

How did you come to the conclusion they spoke different languages?

The 'Dorians' are responsible for the destruction and disappearance of Mycenaean civilisation. According to Herodotus, they were led by Egyptians, an Afro-Asiatic people, and the writing system of Phoenicians, another Afro-Asiatic people, became prominent, centuries after Linear B was brought to a halt. The Mycenaeans were most probably Indo-European and the 'Dorians' absorbed varying degrees of their culture and language, but nevertheless brought about a fundamental change in the region, including the introduction of the term 'Hellene'. Why don't you tell me how you came to the conclusion that they spoke the same language?

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1782

[Spartan]

Homer.

So 800 bc or so?

Substantiate your claim by explaining the methodology used by Chadwick and Ventris to 'decipher' Linear B, and produce comparative sentences between the 'deciphered' Mycenaean language and the language you speak today, so we can see how 'Greek' it really was (assuming that the 'deciphered' inscriptions are correct).

Well SoM, I am not a scholar in the linguistics field of ancient Greek languages, and as far as I know, niether are you. However, I can provide numerous sources/books/pages of ancient Greek linguistic scholars/experts that accept Ventris and Chadwicks work as the decipherment of Linear B/Mycaenean = Proto Greek. Other than you, who claims that Mycaenean is not Greek?
That Mycaenean is an early form as Greek has already been substantiated, and is widely accepted by experts in the field.
If anything, you should subsantiate that it is not greek, as your stance is the one that goes against the grain.

The 'Dorians' are responsible for the destruction and disappearance of Mycenaean civilisation.

No doubt, however, elements of the Mycaenean language could be found in the next stage of the evolution of the greek language. Arcado-Cypriot. Some Arcadians of the central Peloponnese 'dodged' the Dorians in their mountainous territories, and retained their Mycaenean languange to an extent. Many migrated to Cyprus in the face of this invasion/migration, and evidence of this dialect has been found there.

The Mycenaeans were most probably Indo-European

Yes, and they spoke the earliest form of the the greek language.

and the 'Dorians' absorbed varying degrees of their culture and language, but nevertheless brought about a fundamental change in the region, including the introduction of the term 'Hellene'.

No doubt

Why don't you tell me how you came to the conclusion that they spoke the same language?

I will show you in my following post.

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...ead.php?t=1782

Whos conclusions are these? Yours?

[Spartan]

First ill start by posting an image of the Greek language family tree that is provided by "Linguist List - Internation linguistics community online"

http://linguistlist.org/forms/langs/find-a-language-or-family.cfm

http://multitree.linguistlist.org/codes/gmy

http://multitree.linguistlist.org/trees/15995@666037

Here are some excerpts from various books dealing with what we are discussing, and how they classify the Mycaenean language.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Thanks for the selection of books, they all seem to be convinced it is 'Greek', but none go into the detail I was hoping to see. Ventris has 'deciphered' Linear B in such a way that it allows for signs to be transliterated and pronounced in multiple ways, allowing the translator to make choices on alternative sounds and letters to be used in words, which has called his efforts into doubt by some.

So 800 bc or so?

I am positive you know when Homer was alive. In the Iliad he refers to Thracians from the territory that later became known as Macedonia, and their participation in the war on behalf of the Trojans.

That Mycaenean is an early form as Greek has already been substantiated, and is widely accepted by experts in the field.

It has been accepted by most, but not all, as indicated in your cut and paste. While neither of us are linguists, I am confident that I have done more independent research on the topic than you have, which is why you cannot produce the information that I was seeking. I am aware that most opinions are in favour of considering it proto-Greek, but, in my opinion, it hasn't been adequately substantiated, and if it is related to European then it would have to be an early form of Indo-European, not exclusively 'Greek'. This doesn't discount the loanwords passed on from Mycenaean to what later became the Hellenic language.

If anything, you should subsantiate that it is not greek, as your stance is the one that goes against the grain.

Define 'Greek' in this regard? Why is spoken Greek in the 21st century closer to the 'Homeric' language about 3000 years ago, than the latter is to the 'deciphered' Mycenaean from about 500 years prior? Why was the Phoenician alphabet adopted instead of Linear B after the arival of the Egyptian-led Dorians? Perhaps you have some answers.

Whos conclusions are these? Yours?

Yes, based on research, are you disputing something in particular? Show me something that can change my view and I will happily adapt to logic, but I suspect that you won't do either.

[Spartan]

Thanks for the selection of books,

No problem friend.

they all seem to be convinced it is 'Greek',

Of course they are, it has been proven for over 60 years now that its Greek.
Can you provide with any books that clearly state that Mycaenean is not an early form of Greek?

I am positive you know when Homer was alive. In the Iliad he refers to Thracians from the territory that later became known as Macedonia, and their participation in the war on behalf of the Trojans.

In that case it does not pre-date the greek speaking presence in the Balkans which is attested to prior to to that, as the Mycaenean language was spoken prior to that.

It has been accepted by most, but not all, as indicated in your cut and paste.

By this 'logic' OJ Simpson is innocent due to a 'reasonable doubt'.
We all, know the truth though.

While neither of us are linguists, I am confident that I have done more independent research on the topic than you have, which is why you cannot produce the information that I was seeking.

What difference does it make if you have, or havent done more research than me or not? The research has already been done sir. By linguistic experts and scholars who have had their research published by reputable universities and publishers. People far more qualified than me or you! And you want my info? For what? The infos there. The research has already been done, published , and accepted. Mycaenean is the earliest stage of the Greek language. It would take someone far more qualified than yourself to disprove it.

I am aware that most opinions are in favour of considering it proto-Greek, but, in my opinion, it hasn't been adequately substantiated, and if it is related to European then it would have to be an early form of Indo-European, not exclusively 'Greek'.

Of cource the vast majority of expert opinions(the only ones that really count) are in favour of calling it proto-Greek....it is!
You are also entitled to your opinion. It is wrong however, and holds no water since you can not back it with anything. What should I do, disregard the proof of qualified people, because its not enough for you? Who are you ? lol. The reason you dispute this is your hatred for anything labeled "greek". In this case it has left you unable to remain objective. Can you show me any books, linguist experts, scholars who can prove that Mycaenean is not proto Greek?

Define 'Greek' in this regard?

Call it Greek, Chinese, Antarctic or Pakistani. It doesnt matter.
The language group we are discussing stretches back from Mycaenean, until today, and includes many dialects and languages in its evolution.
This group of languages and dialects(whatever you wish to call it) share commonalities and similarities that link them into 1 distinct group. Greek!! (or whatever you would like to call it). Other than maybe Chinese, no other language group can boast the same. Perhaps this is what burns you, and drives you to dispute anything with the word `Greek` included.

Why is spoken Greek in the 21st century closer to the 'Homeric' language about 3000 years ago, than the latter is to the 'deciphered' Mycenaean from about 500 years prior?

Imo, because the modern greek is closer related to the Greek spoken by the tribes that came after the Mycaeneans.
Because Alexander standardized the greek language into Koine, and our language has directly evolved from this.
The Ionic/Attic dialect differed alot from the Mycaenean as they evolved seperately for many years.
When the 2 'merged', the elements of the language of the latter tribe prevailed.
However, as I mentioned earlier, Mycaenean greek elements were easily recognizable in the next stage of its evolution - Arcado-cipriot.

Why was the Phoenician alphabet adopted instead of Linear B after the arival of the Egyptian-led Dorians?

More convenient, and practical

Yes, based on research

Your research?
If yes, publish it, if any respectable institution will (i highly doubt it though lol), and perhaps then theyll hold some water.
Until then, you may as well quote Bogov, or even better, our very own expert linguist Serdarot to disprove that Mycaenean is Greek.
Its just as reliable as a MTO link consisting of your non-expert opinions in this case.

are you disputing something in particular?

I dispute your claim that Mycaenean is not an early form of Greek.
As do the vast majority of experts in this field.

Show me something that can change my view and I will happily adapt to logic, but I suspect that you won't do either.

Sorry dude, but I dont care if you believe its Greek or not anymore.
Your opinion is meaningless to how this language is classified in an official capacity.
Especially since the majority of evidence points to, and proves that Linear B is Greek. Its staring you in the face, yet you still wont accept it.
You are the one with the 'Vasil Bogov theory' that Mycaenean has been 'mistaken' for Greek by academia.
How can I change your view, if the experts cant?
Why would I cease to believe what is proven?
Because you question it? lol

[Sovius]

Ventris has 'deciphered' Linear B in such a way that it allows for signs to be transliterated and pronounced in multiple ways, allowing the translator to make choices on alternative sounds and letters to be used in words, which has called his efforts into doubt by some.

A very keen observation.

Wouldn’t using a known language to ‘seemingly’ decipher a completely unknown syllabic alphabet automatically and repetitively produce results that reflected the lexical elements of the language that was sourced to arrive at these results? If Ventris used the Welsh language would he not have produced what could be considered Welsh archeological artifacts?

[Soldier of Macedon]

In that case it does not pre-date the greek speaking presence in the Balkans which is attested to prior to to that, as the Mycaenean language was spoken prior to that.

That's if one is to agree that Mycenaean was 'Greek'. I don't, and I intend to investigate the matter further until I am satisfied with the information. There was certainly no language or nation known as 'Hellenic' in the Mycenaean era. I don't care if it is or isn't 'Greek', I just don't believe it has been adequately substantiated thus far. Furthermore, given that your knowledge about this topic doesn't extend beyond the average cut n' paste that is a managable task even for a primary school child, I won't be relying on your participation for any deliverable answers.

By this 'logic' OJ Simpson is innocent due to a 'reasonable doubt'.

By your 'logic', maybe.

What difference does it make if you have, or havent done more research than me or not? The research has already been done sir.

There is a huge difference. I have a greater understanding of the topic and I am still researching it, whereas your knowledge stops at cut n' paste. If my people stopped at the "research already been done sir", morons would continue believing the falsity of Macedonians being 'Greek'. Because of people like me who have bothered to delve into the subjects and carry out independent research, that is no longer the case. My contribution may be minimal in the greater scheme, but it is relevant, and certainly shouldn't be dismissed at a Macedonian forum by the likes of some vindictive Greek, much less by one who hasn't ever bothered researching the topic he parrots on about. If you have nothing to contribute other than repeating what is already stated in the books you cited, then you have little value on this thread. That being the case, don't waste my time with your childish garbage.

What should I do, disregard the proof of qualified people, because its not enough for you? Who are you ? lol.

Did I ask you to disregard what they have written? Have my efforts on this thread been for the purpose of 'convincing' you, of all people? Who the hell are you? Is this your attempt at insulting or offending me? Is this your purpose on the forum now, to behave like some useless condescending prick that is still bitching on the inside about something that happened months ago? Don't overvalue yourself.

Call it Greek, Chinese, Antarctic or Pakistani. It doesnt matter.

Thanks for the advice, I will stick with early IE or Proto IE for now.

Imo, because the modern greek is closer related to the Greek spoken by the tribes that came after the Mycaeneans.

Yeah. Why is it closer?

More convenient, and practical

A thoughful answer that confirms your level of knowledge and understanding.

I dispute your claim that Mycaenean is not an early form of Greek.
As do the vast majority of experts in this field.

Some of the 'majority' often thought Macedonia was not peopled by Macedonians. Clearly, they were wrong. If my research into this topic bothers you and prevents you from being constructive, then stay out of the discussion.

You are the one with the 'Vasil Bogov theory' that Mycaenean has been 'mistaken' for Greek by academia.

Can you show me where I have cited Bogov? If not, I suggest you tone down your lies, they are generating a stench, and I don't appreciate it.

If you are going to respond, cut the garbage and be constructive, if not, then get over it. You've stated your opinion and clearly, aside from the cut n' paste, you're irrelevant to the discussion.

[Soldier of Macedon]

A very keen observation.

Wouldn’t using a known language to ‘seemingly’ decipher a completely unknown syllabic alphabet automatically and repetitively produce results that reflected the lexical elements of the language that was sourced to arrive at these results? If Ventris used the Welsh language would he not have produced what could be considered Welsh archeological artifacts?

Good point Sovius. Thankfully, you can have a better appreciation about the questions I have asked than people who clearly don't have a clue about the topic.

What are your thoughts on it, mate, can you shed some light with regard to Ventris' methodology? I would like to have the tools at our disposal to put the 'deciphering' to the test.