View Single Post
Old 08-19-2009, 09:03 PM   #8
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 241
Sovius is on a distinguished road

The Hesiodic Myth of Macedonian and Greek Ethnogenesis

From Carlos Parada’s website:

Notions typically regarded as dating back to the 8th Century BC:
Pandora 2 consorted with Zeus and gave birth to Latinus 3, after whom the Latins were called, and to Graecus, after whom those who followed Hellenic customs were called Greeks.
Thyia 1 consorted with Zeus and gave birth to Magnes 1, after whom the district of Magnesia was called, and to Macedon, after whom Macedonia was called.

Hesiod regarded all four peoples as sharing a common descent. The Macedonians were thought of sibling peoples to the Magnesians and more distantly related to the Latins (Ladinci/ledyani) and Greeks (Graikoi). Magnes were essentially eastern Thessalians in a geographic sense.


According to the tale of the Odyssey, the Pelasgians inhabited the regions between Crete and Thessaly, bordering the Thracians to the north. Around this time, populations who came to be regarded as Hellenic or Hellenized, such as the Myrmidons, also inhabited the Thessalian plain. The Illiad extends the lands of the Pelasgians into what came to be referred to as Epirus far to the west of the Thessalian Plain, where these southern Illyrian peoples maintained Dodona (ch), which was a matriarchal temple before it adopted a new patriarchal belief system. Hellas was a region in southern Thessaly, as well, within the kingdom of Peleus, the banner under which Achilles the Skythian fought. Between this region and that which would become the heart of the Macedonian Empire was Mount Olympus.

According to the records of the historian Ephorus, Hesiod also wrote of the Pelasgians in Arcadia.

Pelasgians were also recorded as inhabiting the Troad, the Peloponnesus and other regions between the northwestern region of Asia Minor, Epirus and Crete to the South.

It’s important to remember that Rhea (Rhaetia) was considered the mother of Zeus and that Rhesus was regarded as a Thracian proper name in the Illyiad when contemplating the significance of Dodona to what colonial historians considered native populations and the reach of indigenous Southeastern European belief systems during the Ancient Period.



Two passages have traditionally been used to demonstrate the relationship between the indigenous populations of Southern Illyria and the region’s colonial or culturally diverged populations. The P37.2 genetic marker provides greater clarity as to the specific nature of this relationship and its significance to modern populations throughout the peninsula. Even the Hellenes, as the term can be specifically applied in a tribal sense, were speakers of an Illyrian language at one point in time, according to this historian.

“What language however the Pelasgians used to speak I am not able with certainty to say. But one must pronounce judging by those that still remain of the Pelasgians who dwelt in the city of Creston above the Tyrsenians, and who were once neighbors of the race now called Dorian, dwelling then in the land which is now called Thessaliotis, and also by those that remain of the Pelasgians that who settled at Plakia and Skylakē in the region of the Hellespont, who before that had been settlers with the Athenians, and of the natives of the various other towns which are really Pelasgian, though they have lost the name. If one must pronounce judging by these, the Pelasgians used to speak a Barbarian language. If, therefore, all the Pelasgian race was such as these, then the Attic race, being Pelasgian, at the same time changed and became Hellenic, unlearnt also its language. For the people of Creston do not speak the same language with any of those who dwell about them, nor yet do the people of Plakia, but they speak the same language as each other. By this it is proved that they still keep unchanged the form of language which they brought with them when they migrated to these places.”

“As for the Hellenic race, it has used ever the same language, as I clearly perceive, since it first took its rise; but since the time when it parted off feeble at first from the Pelasgian race, setting forth from a small beginning it has increased to a great number of ethnic groups, and chiefly because many Barbarian races have been added to it besides. Moreover, it is true, as I think, of the Pelasgian race also, that so far as it remained Barbarian it never made any great increase.”

The historical record demonstrates that the Hellenes and the Macedonians were both regarded as Pelasgian populations and that the Hellenes came to take on so many different populations, similar to New York or London, that their language eventually changed to reflect a diverse linguistic environment, having incorporated the elements of other cultures who came to redefine many of the cultural attributes that had once defined the Hellenes.

Herodotus also reported that the Hellenes had driven many Pelasgians into exile and gave accounts for a number of military engagements, demonstrating a pattern of ethnic conflicts and intolerance.



“Before the time of Hellene, son of Deucalion, ... the country went by the names of the different tribes, in particular of the Pelasgian. It was not until Hellene 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 Egyptian Danaids of Aeschylus' play The Suppliants may very well provide literary evidence for the actual migration of M35 and M172 defined populations into the region, but migratory waves could have occurred far earlier and later, when we consider such toponyms as Thebes and European (Minoan) colonies such as Avaris in Egypt, indicating economic activity between these two regions going back to at least 1,500 BC.

Beyond simply providing additional validation for previous mentions of the Pelasgians in relation to the Hellenes and other populations, these passages provide posterity with an explanation as to how this anthropologically observable change swept across the region.


Thucydides also reported that the Hellenic Athenians lived in other parts of the region of Attica before converging on Athens, which was already inhabited by Illyrian populations. Colonial animosity towards Illyrians is preserved in another of his passages that noted that a parcel of land below the Acropolis had been deemed "Pelasgian" and was regarded as having been cursed.

We see that linguistic divergence was not uniform in all areas and this divergence was centered around areas that existed like Islands amid a vast area that these transformative periods did not alter.


Researchers, such as George E. Bean during the 1960’s, have reported that at least 19 different mountains were named Olympus during the Ancient Period and, again, we find that the most revered mountain rose above the valleys and plains of Macedonia and Magnesia. In Arcadia, another region inhabited by Pelasgians we find another mountain of the same name. The lands of Phrygia, Pamphlagonia (Pov Lagonija) and Lycia all had sacred mountains dedicated to the Southern Illyrian pantheon. The island of Skyros, where we find another mountain that bares this name, was once referred to as Pelasgia.

Why did the Macedonians take this specific island over in 340 BC? Why would a Macedonian not want to enter a contest honoring the gods of his people? Why would a Macedonian claim to be a descendent of Heraklea? A possible explanation, of course, is that which requires no additional explanation.
Sovius is offline   Reply With Quote