|
Post by Artemisia on Dec 28, 2003 22:02:13 GMT -5
Something of an aside...but...What did the Greeks of Massilia know about Britain and Ireland...and when did they know it? I've read accounts for quite a while of the Phonecians having traded in Britain for tin and some sources from the 19th century (I find these interesting...as for veracity..cannot say) claim that the Phnecians even had colonies in Ireland. Did these Massilian Greeks know of Britain and Ireland thru the Phonecians or by their own contact. Have you heard of any Phonecian colonies in Ireland? (I do not discount those reports simply as they are old...I think sometimes people are too quick to do that) Pytheas of Massilia was said to be the first Greek to circumnavigate Britain. The Greeks knew Ireland as Hibernia. Check this out and read the book on the magnificent voyage of Pytheas of Massilia. www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/britain/iron_massilia.shtmlAs for Phoenician colonies in Ireland, it is a possibility but to date, no evidence for such a colony exists. Are you of Irish ancestry, Gladstone?
|
|
|
Post by Gladstone on Dec 28, 2003 23:05:04 GMT -5
Pytheas of Massilia was said to be the first Greek to circumnavigate Britain. The Greeks knew Ireland as Hibernia. Check this out and read the book on the magnificent voyage of Pytheas of Massilia. www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/britain/iron_massilia.shtmlAs for Phoenician colonies in Ireland, it is a possibility but to date, no evidence for such a colony exists. Are you of Irish ancestry, Gladstone? My family ancestry on one side is Norman. There are people with my family sirname all over the British isles, and Ireland as well. The family claims we left from Wales for America in the 18th century, however my own research is finding that my family left England for Maryland for certain by 1660, and there is someone with my family's unusual Norman sirname at the Jamestown second supply of 1608 (some think they left from Virginia to go to Marland) but thats uncertain. I suppose the Irish with my family sirname would be certainly cousins, as for direct family ancestry in Ireland, it's not known. The other side of the family is Scandinavian (we be a Viking bunch we! ) This link is from the January, 1841 issue of The North American Review. Check out starting at the top of pg 194 going on to pg 195. It describes "Phonecian colonies" but does not give much detail. It does describe the Greek description of Hybernia and it references what you spoke of if only indirectly. I find these old writings of interest as they give us their outlook and its fascinating to compare to now. This is taken from a speech talking of the Irish relationship to America in 1841. (One can take them for what they are worth ) Thanks for the link, it is amazing how much travel took place so early. cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DABQ7578-0052-10&coll=moa&view=50&root=%2Fmoa%2Fnora%2Fnora0052%2F&tif=00201.TIF&pagenum=194
|
|
Andrea
Full Member
IM ROY JE DA JEST TO VESNIYO - May they all have a paradise this springtime
Posts: 119
|
Post by Andrea on Dec 29, 2003 4:44:05 GMT -5
Artemisia my dear friend you are biased. If you are young archaeologist that is not a good trait. Science has to be objective.
Following your logic, that Slavic speaking populations are not mentioned as Slavs in ancient texts, we can conclude that even today there are no Slavic speaking peoples in the Balkans. Of course, there are Serbs, Chroatians, Bulgarians, Macedonians but there are no Slavs at all. Even in Europe there are no Slavic speaking peoples at all (except Slovenians and Slovacs). Yes, there are Russians, Poles, Chezcks, Ukrainians, Bielorusians, Lusatians....but they are not Slavs. They don't have (Sl) in their labels.
Who is that idiot who claims that Slavic speaking populations exist in Europe? He must be a propagandist or ...something ;D.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Dec 29, 2003 17:43:52 GMT -5
Artemisia my dear friend you are biased. If you are young archaeologist that is not a good trait. Science has to be objective. Following your logic, that Slavic speaking populations are not mentioned as Slavs in ancient texts, we can conclude that even today there are no Slavic speaking peoples in the Balkans. Of course, there are Serbs, Chroatians, Bulgarians, Macedonians but there are no Slavs at all. Even in Europe there are no Slavic speaking peoples at all (except Slovenians and Slovacs). Yes, there are Russians, Poles, Chezcks, Ukrainians, Bielorusians, Lusatians....but they are not Slavs. They don't have (Sl) in their labels. Who is that idiot who claims that Slavic speaking populations exist in Europe? He must be a propagandist or ...something ;D. If the ancient peoples of the Balkans spoke Slavic languages how do you explain the extraordinary short distances between them? I mean if we had Serbs, Bulgarians and Poles 2,500 years ago don't you think they would have drifted apart linguistically? Especially before their languages became written?
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Dec 29, 2003 17:49:54 GMT -5
I also hope that this discussion has nothing to do with Macedonians and their political interests, the modern daily politics should be forgotten when speaking about ancient events. I also hope this is not a race to get to Kosovo first? ;D
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 29, 2003 23:32:58 GMT -5
I also hope this is not a race to get to Kosovo first? ;D I'm not sure what you mean
|
|
Slaven
Junior Member
SURG GASTOY I NAS - Cheers to the guests and us
Posts: 56
|
Post by Slaven on Dec 30, 2003 4:25:33 GMT -5
Artemidoros wrote: "I mean if we had Serbs, Bulgarians and Poles 2,500 years ago don't you think they would have drifted apart linguistically? Especially before their languages became written? "
Well Artemidoros, it depends on many factors. The dynamics of change of the languages is a complex problem. There is no formula to solve that problem,yet.
For instance, Mario Alinei has a different logic: He finds that the lack of differentiation of the Slavic languages shows that the Southern branch of Slavs is the oldest.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 30, 2003 6:59:49 GMT -5
For instance, Mario Alinei has a different logic: He finds that the lack of differentiation of the Slavic languages shows that the Southern branch of Slavs is the oldest. The age of a group of languages does not really tell us anything about the age of the occupation of a certain territory. It's possible that the Southern branch is the oldest and it was originally spoken beyond the Danube.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Dec 30, 2003 10:35:33 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you mean It was a joke but born out of an ongoing war in cyberspace between Serbs and Albanians. The Albanians claim the ancient Dardanians were an Illyrian tribe inhabitting the NW part of FYROM and Kosovo and since they are descendants of the Illyrians they were in Kosovo first (therefore the Serbs are the invading foreigners). The Serbs counterclaim the Albanians are not Illyrians, or that the Dardanians were a Thracian tribe and as such related to the Serbs and so on. It appears though that some in the Serb camp want to have their pie and eat it. They want to be autochthonous and at the same time 100% Slavic.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Dec 30, 2003 11:04:40 GMT -5
Artemidoros wrote: "I mean if we had Serbs, Bulgarians and Poles 2,500 years ago don't you think they would have drifted apart linguistically? Especially before their languages became written? " Well Artemidoros, it depends on many factors. The dynamics of change of the languages is a complex problem. There is no formula to solve that problem,yet. For instance, Mario Alinei has a different logic: He finds that the lack of differentiation of the Slavic languages shows that the Southern branch of Slavs is the oldest. The southern branch of Slavic languages being the oldest makes perfect sense to me. That is not the point I was trying to make. Awar raised a very important and valid question that remains unanswered. How can the enormous spread of Slavic languages be explained. In my unqualified opinion which I must make clear I am not able to support it was probably due to cultural dominance. The radiation of culture in the early Middleages in eastern Europe was from south to north. It seems that ancient Slavonic was the medium and at the same time subject of that spread. South of the Danube it was a different story. I believe the reasons were mostly political and financial. The Slavic tribes in most cases forced their way into the Empire's territory or in some cases were invited to (Serbs) and were for long periods of time not under the control of Constantinople. Any original inhabitants in their territories were not subject to taxation, the excesses of Byzantine feudal lords etc. In a case like this they would have quickly identified with (and absorbed the language of) the new elite. Andrea mentioned the continuity theory. I am of the persuasion that languages are much easier replaced than populations. I believe in the continuity of populations rather than languages. To give an extreme example of the way I see things, I would not exclude the possibility that Slavic is no longer spoken in its "birthplace". How does Hungary and Transylvania sound to you as the original Slavic land? Just trying to stir things up...
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 30, 2003 11:08:32 GMT -5
It was a joke but born out of an ongoing war in cyberspace between Serbs and Albanians. The Albanians claim the ancient Dardanians were an Illyrian tribe inhabitting the NW part of FYROM and Kosovo and since they are descendants of the Illyrians they were in Kosovo first (therefore the Serbs are the invading foreigners). The Serbs counterclaim the Albanians are not Illyrians, or that the Dardanians were a Thracian tribe and as such related to the Serbs and so on. It appears though that some in the Serb camp want to have their pie and eat it. They want to be autochthonous and at the same time 100% Slavic. ROFL! With that logic, we should all give entire Europe back to the neanderthals, because they were here before we were. ;D
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 30, 2003 11:19:05 GMT -5
I think that there is no simplistic solution to the theme of souhern slavs and their origins. It differs very much from region to region, from period to period.
I say that there is a strong relation, and an unclear border between ancient 'slavs' ( whatever the name they used at that time, in the various regions they lived ) and Thracians.
Since, at that time there was no national conscience, there were probably many different tribes that were originally something else, but got assimilated into the languages of those times.
The people bordering the black sea and the Eurasian steppe could have assimilated a number of various tribes that previously spoke other IE and non-IE languages. Slavs probably carry a great deal of finno-ugric, just as the modern fin0-ugric carry a lot of Slavic DNA.
But that's not really important today. The FYROM macedonians are probably the least 'Slavic' people in terms of DNA, but they are as Slavic as any other in terms of ethnic and linguistic continuity.
There are many peoples that were assimilated during the ancient times, and it's ludicrous to attempt to re-live some ancient ethnicities such as Illyrians etc.
For example: Prussians are genetically mostly Balto-Slavic, yet they are the most 'German' of any modern Germans in terms of their ethnic history, culture, influence and language.
Language and culture is not imprinted in the DNA.
|
|
Dean
Full Member
Truth Before Ego
Posts: 245
|
Post by Dean on Dec 30, 2003 21:05:26 GMT -5
ROFL! With that logic, we should all give entire Europe back to the neanderthals, because they were here before we were. ;D I'm back to reclaim my ancestral land. I didn't think twice about my ethnogenetic origins until I began researching Alexander the Great and encountered FYROM message boards full of anti-Hellenic sentiment. It was at these type of sites where I learned that Slavs had a presence in Greece and saw statements with racist implications such as modern Greeks have no right to claim any relationship to ancient Greece because they are not the children of the ancient Greeks. I would have never thought to challenge a person's ethnicity. If someone spoke Slavic, to me this person was a Slav and that was the end of it--unless this person looked like Michael Jordan or the Japanese prime minister. In light of my exposure to the esoteric world of ethnogenetic studies, I am fascinated by all of this and I'm of two minds about these studies. On one hand, as in the popular Y DNA studies of European populations, ethnogenetic relationships seem very clear. On the other hand, when I think of the relatively few studies performed and the people from around my family's home towns, who are Greeks but are both lighter- and darker-featured than Greeks (I think), it seems that gaps remain in our understanding, and much work has yet to be done.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on Dec 30, 2003 22:01:17 GMT -5
It was a joke but born out of an ongoing war in cyberspace between Serbs and Albanians. The Albanians claim the ancient Dardanians were an Illyrian tribe inhabitting the NW part of FYROM and Kosovo and since they are descendants of the Illyrians they were in Kosovo first (therefore the Serbs are the invading foreigners). The Serbs counterclaim the Albanians are not Illyrians, or that the Dardanians were a Thracian tribe and as such related to the Serbs and so on. It appears though that some in the Serb camp want to have their pie and eat it. They want to be autochthonous and at the same time 100% Slavic. 1. The Dardanians were most likely an Illyrian tribe since their name also appears in Albanian place names such as "dardhe" which is supposedly of Illyrian origin. Dardhe in Albanian means "pear" by the way. However, it is interesting that the Trojans were also sometimes called Dardanians (the Albanians say that the Trojans were Albanian!) and it is more than proven that the Trojans were not an Illyrian nation. 2. Most modern Albanians are not Illyrian. The Illyrian element is almost gone and many Albanians themselves say that after 1200, there was a "halt" to the Illyrians as a people and their land was settled by several waves of migrants. The Albanians who moved to Italy and Greece in the 1400-1500 were probably Illyrian in origin since many of their last names sound Illyrian and their looks are not far from what ancient sources say about the Illyrians' appearance. They left Albania in order to escape conversion into Islam. 3. The Thracians and the Serbs were not related......they're only related in the minds of some Slavs! If the Thracians were related to the Serbs, then the Greeks, Illyrians and Italiacs were related to the Serbs in the same way.
|
|
Andrea
Full Member
IM ROY JE DA JEST TO VESNIYO - May they all have a paradise this springtime
Posts: 119
|
Post by Andrea on Dec 31, 2003 8:43:18 GMT -5
The age of a group of languages does not really tell us anything about the age of the occupation of a certain territory. It's possible that the Southern branch is the oldest and it was originally spoken beyond the Danube. Dienekes, read the quotes from Alinei's study. You can find them in this thread. He states that Slavic languages and peoples exist in the Balkans from Stone age. Please do not change the meaning of the original text. Also about Curta: I quoted Curta's explicite statement that there is an enormous archaeological evidence that the Veneti were Slavs (Page 13). He is an archaeologist and he knows the situation in that (Venetic) area of archaeology much better than me and you. On the other hand, you are pointing to some topics that I haven't mentioned. Please, hold the discussion to the topic. Also Curta discards the notion of Slavic migrations explicitely on several places in his book. Please read the editorial review: www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521802024/qid%3D1057943664/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/002-8487208-2638437 The last centence of the editorial review reads: " The author rejects the idea of Slavic migration, and shows that "the Slavs" were the product of the frontier." If you have the book, you can find many places in which he explicitely rejects the idea of Slavic mass migrations. If you wish I'll quote some of them. In that sense, he is congruent to the claims of the linguist Mario Alinei and a bunch of other scholars who support the Continuity theory .
|
|