Historum - History Forums

Historum - History Forums (http://historum.com/)
-   Ancient History (http://historum.com/ancient-history/)
-   -   Achaeans=greeks? Is it so? (http://historum.com/ancient-history/132015-achaeans-greeks-so.html)

DonVin4enco December 21st, 2017 10:09 AM

Achaeans=greeks? Is it so?
 
Generally in every book is given a sign of equality between achaeans and greeks, but is it really so. I will give in the next lines few accounts ...

First is fairly to say that Herodotus distinguish four big tribes: Aeolians, Ionians, Dorians and Achaeans. But hi finds one of them different: “The daughters of Danaos were they who brought this rite out of Egypt and taught it to the women of the Pelasgians” The History of Herodotus, parallel English/Greek: Book 2: Euterpe: 170 “189. It would appear also that the Hellenes made the dress and the aigis of the images of Athene after the model of the Libyan women… 190. The nomads bury those who die just in the same manner as the Hellenes” The History of Herodotus, parallel English/Greek: Book 4: Melpomene: 190

Lets see who also talk about this: Strabo citing Euripides: “ And Euripides too, in his Archelaus, says: "Danaus, the father of fifty daughters, on coming into Argos, took up his abode in the city of Inachus, and throughout Greece he laid down a law that all people hitherto named Pelasgians were to be called Danaans". LacusCurtius ? Strabo's Geography ? Book*V Chapter*2

And here comes up the question who are Pelasgians - ancient indigenous people of South Europe, and obviously the ancient greek authors knows they are the locals and what about so called Hellenes...

Aeschylus give account of How do they look giving the words of the Pelasgian king to the Dorians: “No likeness of our country do ye bear, But semblance as of Libyan womankind. Even such a stock by Nilus' banks might grow…” The Internet Classics Archive | The Suppliants by Aeschylus

So far we have 3 accounts claiming the Dorians are not indigenous people of Greece and most likely an african. Is there any way we can proof that? The history now using other methods to define origins. The gens don't lie...

” Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310. Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt. “ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11260506

Even today gens of the local greeks reveals something else... Lets see now is the picture is change under the Romans...

Titus Livius transmits the words of a Roman general: “[36.17]the hostile army was more numerous and made up of far better soldiery; there were in that army Macedonians, Thracians and Illyrians, all very warlike tribes; here there are Syrians and Asiatic Greeks, the meanest of mankind, and born only for slavery”. Livy's History of Rome

Just to add that the Thracians inhabits Balkans at least 15C BC of not early

The Roman historian Livy recorded that Cato told the Roman Senate: “The better and the happier becomes the fortune of our commonwealth day by day and the greater the empire grows – and already we have crossed into Greece and Asia, places filled with all the allurements of vice, and we are handling the treasures of kings – the more I fear that these things will capture us rather than we them...
Cato was not a prophet of God. But he had a very good understanding of the practical morally corrupting effects which Greek philosophy and culture had had on Greek society by that time. Cato knew that Greek philosophers had mostly advocated or at least passively accepted paedophilia or pederasty, public nudity and other immoral practices...” http://internetbiblecollege.net/Less...roy%20Rome.pdf

Strabo says basically the same "But our way of life has influenced a change to worse in almost all nations, introducing among them the luxury and sensual pleasures, as well as the frauds needed to satisfy these vices, resulting in innumerable manifestations of greed. So many of this viciousness has conquered the barbarians, the nomads and the rest. "(I could not find english version) Strabo - Geography

And in the same time the Thracians are described different:

Justinian I: 'It is important and everyone knows that if anyone mentions the name of Thrace, as soon as the words go out of his lips, the listener realizes the noble qualities of this people - incredible masculinity and fearsome militancy experienced in every way on the battlefields. These qualities are typical only for them, they have them in their blood. "

Old Greek art shows strong style similarities to the Egyptian. It is also worth mentioning that the early Greek statues depict people with negroid traits. Apparently, the assimilation of the Europeid Pelasgian population lasted for a long time. According to Herodotus, in the beginning the Greeks were a small, insignificant tribe, which grew not without the assimilation of the pelagues: "History" -I.58.

In the end I want to note that I do not hate the Greeks. I admire the talents of Praxiteles and Phidias, I admire the honesty and accuracy of Strabo. I admire the works of Euripides, Pausanias, Thucydides. The good and the positive should not be denied, but the same holds true for the negative. The fact are just facts...

to be continue

Dzmeka January 1st, 2018 11:39 AM

I'm not an expert myself, but have wondered this before. I found this when searching for it:

The Achaeans is the name of the people inhabiting in the area of Achaea in Greece. However, its definition changed throughout history. Homer used the term in his epics, Iliad and Odyssey, to collectively describe the Greeks. Other collective names were also used, the most common being Danaans and Argives. The Greeks Homer referred to probably belonged to the Mycenaean civilisation that was prevalent in Greece from 1600 BC until 1100 BC. There has been no consensus among scholars as to who the Homeric Achaeans really were and whether they had a connection to the historic Achaeans and inhabitants of Achaea. In Greek mythology, the Achaeans were the descendants of Achaeus, grandson of Hellen and father of all Greeks. According to Hyginus, during the ten year conflict in Troy, 22 Achaeans killed 362 Trojans.

https://www.greekmythology.com/Myths.../achaeans.html

My assumption is that the Achaeans were a small tribe from Achaea originally and somewhere during the Mycenean period (or a bit before), they rose to prominence and thus their name became the name for all Greeks. Afterwards, another Greek-speaking tribe, the Hellenes (who were from Thessaly according to Homer), rose to prominence and thus their endonym became the new endonym replacing 'Achaean'.

DonVin4enco January 2nd, 2018 05:07 AM

What it gets me is the assumption that today Greeks are descendants of Mycenae and Knossos, when there is a tons of evidence for opposite. I have some more info to share, but when I have some free time. What I think happened after 1177 BC The Year Civilization Collapsed arise a good time for new settlers in mainland Greece and tribes from Africa settled there.

Solidaire January 2nd, 2018 08:00 AM

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23310

Study results show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically highly similar - but not identical - and that modern Greeks descend from these populations. The Minoans and Mycenaeans descended mainly from early Neolithic farmers, likely migrating thousands of years prior to the Bronze Age from Anatolia, in what is today modern Turkey.

"Minoans, Mycenaeans, and modern Greeks also had some ancestry related to the ancient people of the Caucasus, Armenia, and Iran. This finding suggests that some migration occurred in the Aegean and southwestern Anatolia from further east after the time of the earliest farmers," said Lazaridis.

While both Minoans and Mycenaeans had both "first farmer" and "eastern" genetic origins, Mycenaeans traced an additional minor component of their ancestry to ancient inhabitants of Eastern Europe and northern Eurasia. This type of so-called Ancient North Eurasian ancestry is one of the three ancestral populations of present-day Europeans, and is also found in modern Greeks.

A passion for history inspired Stamatoyannopoulos to initiate this project: "For over 100 years, many hotly contested theories have circulated concerning the origin of the inhabitants of Bronze Age, Classical, and modern Greece, including the so-called 'Coming of the Greeks' in the late second millennium, the 'Black Athena' hypothesis of the Afroasiatic origins of Classical Greek civilization, and the notorious theory of the 19th century German historian Fallmerayer, who popularized the belief that the descendants of the ancient Greeks had vanished in early Medieval times."

While the new study does not resolve all the outstanding questions, it provides key answers. Importantly, the findings disprove the widely held theory that the Mycenaeans were a foreign population in the Aegean and were not related to the Minoans. The results also dispel the theory that modern Greeks did not descend from the Mycenaeans and later ancient Greek populations.

In broad strokes, the new study shows that there was genetic continuity in the Aegean from the time of the first farmers to present-day Greece, but not in isolation. The peoples of the Greek mainland had some admixture with Ancient North Eurasians and peoples of the Eastern European steppe both before and after the time of the Minoans and Mycenaeans, which may provide the missing link between Greek speakers and their linguistic relatives elsewhere in Europe and Asia.


https://phys.org/news/2017-08-civili...s-science.html

The continuity between the Mycenaeans and living people is “particularly striking given that the Aegean has been a crossroads of civilizations for thousands of years,” says co-author George Stamatoyannopoulos of the University of Washington in Seattle. This suggests that the major components of the Greeks’ ancestry were already in place in the Bronze Age, after the migration of the earliest farmers from Anatolia set the template for the genetic makeup of Greeks and, in fact, most Europeans. “The spread of farming populations was the decisive moment when the major elements of the Greek population were already provided,” says archaeologist Colin Renfrew of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, who was not involved in the work.

The Greeks really do have near-mythical origins, ancient DNA reveals | Science | AAAS

DonVin4enco January 2nd, 2018 11:06 AM

Only the second article I can accept is the only one saying which research group have done it. But I’m not arguing about this information and I will explain why. Herodotus: “...,and Lacedaemon was populated be Dorians while Athens was populated by Ionians. For those two people - the one Pelasgian, the other Hellenic - had been pre - eminent in the old days.” The Histories (56). So what becomes clear one of the big groups of so called Greeks is not “Hellenic”. Ionians have inhabited big chunk of mainland Greece and mala Asia. And we all know which capital today is Athens. Now the question is from where this probs have been taken?!? If any one travel trough Greece can see with his own eyes in the north are light skin in the south and most of the islands dark skin.

Solidaire January 2nd, 2018 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonVin4enco (Post 2879972)
Only the second article I can accept is the only one saying which research group have done it. But I’m not arguing about this information and I will explain why. Herodotus: “...,and Lacedaemon was populated be Dorians while Athens was populated by Ionians. For those two people - the one Pelasgian, the other Hellenic - had been pre - eminent in the old days.” The Histories (56). So what becomes clear one of the big groups of so called Greeks is not “Hellenic”. Ionians have inhabited big chunk of mainland Greece and mala Asia. And we all know which capital today is Athens. Now the question is from where this probs have been taken?!? If any one travel trough Greece can see with his own eyes in the north are light skin in the south and most of the islands dark skin.

Riight...so what basically you want to say is that Greeks, modern and ancient ones after the Mycenaeans, are of African origin and not related to other Europeans? Is that it? Judging from a few superficial, arbitrary observations of the modern people, and from a few ill-patched and ill-interpreted sources. What this whole farce seems to me is a FYR Macedonian propaganda nonsense, backed by pseudo-science and a selective patch of bits and parts of ancient sources, taken out of context to paint the desired picture.

Regarding phenotypes, Greeks are a very mixed bag. You can find light-skinned types, as well as darker complexions, even in Crete, which as south as you can get in Greece. Greeks look quite similar to other Mediterranean people. Have you ever been to Italy, Spain or Portugal? Also, bear in mind that Greeks had spread far and wide to colonise almost all of the Mediterranean, and after the conquests of Alexander the Great, throughout Asia and northern Africa. Significant numbers were living in Alexandria, Egypt, a few decades back, and over 1.5 Greeks returned to Greece from Anatolia in 1923. These all add to a diversity of phenotypes, which is similar to other Mediterranean European people.

I also took a closer look to your source about the alleged connection between Greeks and Ethiopians. It is a propagandist pseudo-scientific piece of nonsense to show how "ancient" FYR Macedonians are, and how un-European Greeks are, and to support FYR Macedonian claims that they are the descendants of ancient Macedonians. It is a joint effort from a Mr. Dimitroski (Tissue Typing laboratory. Institute of Blood Transfusion, Skopje. Republic of Macedonia), and a Mr. Arnaiz-Villena (Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H.12 de Octubre, UniversidadComplutense, Madrid, Spain). Full PDF here:

http://www.makedonika.org/processpai...id=ti.2001.pdf

And more here, about the work of Mr. Arnaiz-Villena.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Arnaiz-Villena

Arnaiz-Villena et al. published five scientific articles, where, among other claims, they concluded that the Greek population originates from Sub-Saharan Africa and do not cluster with other Mediterraneans.[8][14][15][16][17] The explanation they offered is that a large number of Sub-Saharans had migrated to Greece (but not to Crete) during Minoan times,[8][14][15][16] i.e. predating both Classical and Mycenaean Greece. Those conclusions were related to the "Black Athena" debate and became embroiled in disputes between Greek and ethnic Macedonian nationalists.[18]

They cited Dörk et al. for having found a marker on Chromosome 7 that is common to Black Africans and, among Caucasoid populations, is found only in Greeks.[14][19] Dörk et al. did find an African-type of cystic fibrosis mutation in Greeks, however this mutation was extremely rare; it was detected only in three Greek families.[19] The explanation they offered is quite different from Arnaiz-Villena's. Dörk et al. state: "Historical contacts—for example, under Alexander the Great or during the ancient Minoan civilization—may provide an explanation for the common ancestry of disease mutations in these ethnically diverse populations."[19]

Hajjej et al. claimed to have confirmed the genetic relatedness between Greeks and Sub-Saharans.[20][21] However they used the same methodology (same gene markers) and same data samples like Arnaiz-Villena et al.[8][15][20][21]

Other authors contradict Arnaiz-Villena's results. In The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton, 1994), Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza grouped Greeks with other European and Mediterranean populations based on 120 loci (view MDS plot[22]). Then, Ayub et al. 2003[23] did the same thing using 182 loci (view dendrogram[24]).[25] Another study was conducted in 2004 at Skopje's University of Ss. Kiril and Metodij, using high-resolution typing of HLA-DRB1 according to Arnaiz-Villena's methodology. Contrary to Arnaiz-Villena's conclusion, no sub-Saharan admixture was detected in the Greek sample.[25]

In a sample of 125 Greeks from Thessaloniki and Sarakatsani, 2 Asian-specific mtDNA sequences (M and D) were detected (1.6%). No sub-Saharan African genes were observed in this population, therefore, non-Caucasoid maternal ancestry in Greece is very low, as elsewhere in Europe.[26] Additionally, in a sample of 366 Greeks from thirteen locations in continental Greece, Crete, Lesvos and Chios, a single African haplogroup A Y Chromosome was found (0.3%). This marks the only instance to date of sub-Saharan DNA being discovered in Greece. In another sample of 42 Greeks, one sequence of the Siberian Tat-C haplogroup turned up, while other studies with larger sample populations have failed to detect this paternal marker in the Greek gene pool[27][28] and while its frequencies are actually much higher in Scandinavian and Slavic populations.[29][30] Also, a paper has detected clades of haplogroups J and E3b that were likely not part of pre-historic migrations into Europe, but rather spread by later historical movements. Greeks possess none of the lineages denoting North African ancestry within the last 5000 years and have only 2% (3/148) of the marker J-M267, which may reflect more recent Middle Eastern admixture.[31]

Jobling et al., in their genetics textbook "Human Evolutionary Genetics: Origins, Peoples & Disease", state that Arnaiz-Villena’s conclusions on the Sub-Saharan origin of Greeks, is an example of arbitrary interpretation and that the methodology used is not appropriate for this kind of research.[32] Karatzios C. et al., made a systematic review of genetics and historical documents, showing great flaws in Arnaiz-Villena’s methodology and theory on the Greeks/Sub-Saharan genetic relationship.[33]

Three respected geneticists, Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Alberto Piazza and Neil Risch, criticised Arnaiz-Villena's methodology.[34] They stated that "Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics. The limitations are made evident by the authors’ extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups." Arnaiz-Villena et al. countered this criticism in a response, stating "single-locus studies, whether using HLA or other markers, are common in this field and are regularly published in the specialist literature".[35]

DonVin4enco January 2nd, 2018 06:23 PM

I can find you 100s places where Herodotus explaining the difference between Pelasgians and Dorians. So tell me what is it, ill-patched, modern observation, or bad interpretation? All other sources I have give are easy to be chacked, and if anyone reads them, but not only the bit but the whole of it will know what the author is trying to say. I’m dare you all please read the ancient accounts don’t trust wiki, seek the truth for yourself. I cannot say I’m 100% right, maybe I’m not even 50 but when I start reading Herodotus and others I found things are not the same as some school books tells as.

Dreamhunter January 2nd, 2018 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solidaire (Post 2879833)
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23310
Study results show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically highly similar - but not identical - and that modern Greeks descend from these populations. The Minoans and Mycenaeans descended mainly from early Neolithic farmers, likely migrating thousands of years prior to the Bronze Age from Anatolia, in what is today modern Turkey.

I don't know. But this wud fit in well with the Anatolian hypothesis aka Out of Anatolia theory.

Solidaire January 3rd, 2018 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonVin4enco (Post 2880141)
I can find you 100s places where Herodotus explaining the difference between Pelasgians and Dorians. So tell me what is it, ill-patched, modern observation, or bad interpretation? All other sources I have give are easy to be chacked, and if anyone reads them, but not only the bit but the whole of it will know what the author is trying to say. I’m dare you all please read the ancient accounts don’t trust wiki, seek the truth for yourself. I cannot say I’m 100% right, maybe I’m not even 50 but when I start reading Herodotus and others I found things are not the same as some school books tells as.

Pelasgians are considered the pre-Hellenic inhabitants of Greece, neolithic farmers that migrated from Anatolia and settled throughout most of Europe. The Dorians are considered one of the four Hellenic tribes, and in fact, according to the traditional point of view, they are considered the last one to migrate into Greece, bringing iron weapons with them, defeating the Myceneans and ending their civilisation, and plunging Greece into its dark age of antiquity. Those dark ages supposedly lasted centuries, during which the former writing system (linear B) vanished, succeeded by the archaic period, the prelude of classical Greece. Of course, there are theories doubting the above theory, and according to which the Dorian invasion might have never happened.

So of course there is a difference between Pelasgians and Dorians, even in the classical narration of this part of history, but I don't understand where this whole African thing comes from. It could be better to examine each passage that strikes your curiosity, see what comes out of it.


PS:
Quote:

Originally Posted by DonVin4enco (Post 2873893)
Aeschylus give account of How do they look giving the words of the Pelasgian king to the Dorians: “No likeness of our country do ye bear, But semblance as of Libyan womankind. Even such a stock by Nilus' banks might grow…” The Internet Classics Archive | The Suppliants by Aeschylus

For example, in this part of the play from Aeschylus that you quote, I see no reference to the Dorians. The passage refers to the Danaides, the fifty daughters of Danaos, the mythical king of Argos and brother of Aegyptos, the mythical king of Egypt. We are talking about mythology and poetry here, not history, but even if you want to try and find historical facts behind mythology, Danaos is closer linked to the Pelasgians, not to the later Greek tribes.

Interpretation as metaphorical history
Even a cautious reading of the subtext as a vehicle for legendary history suggests that a Pelasgian kingship in archaic Argos was overcome, with some violence, by seafarers out of Egypt (compare the Sea Peoples). The new leaders then intermarried with the local dynasty. The descendants of Danaus' "blameless" daughter Hypermnestra, through Danaë, led to Perseus, founder of Mycenae, thus suggesting that Argos had a claim to be the "mother city" of Mycenae.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danaus

The references from Herodotos, and the multiple references in Greek mythology to Egypt and to the Egyptian civilisation are quite natural, given how much this civilisation influenced the Greek one in its baby steps. Egypt was a superpower millenia before Greece became a hotspot for civilisation, one that exerted great influence, political, but most importantly as a civilisation hub. The archaic Greek statues, Kouroi and Kores, are a direct adoption of the Egyptian style, for example. Europa was a Phoenician princess; and so on. Civilisation flourished in Mesopotamia and Egypt first, and through Anatolia and the mediterranean sea influenced Europe. This does not suggest a massive migration from Egypt to Greece, however. There is nothing that would support such an hypothesis.

DonVin4enco January 4th, 2018 12:14 AM

For example, in this part of the play from Aeschylus that you quote, I see no reference to the Dorians. The passage refers to the Danaides, the fifty daughters of Danaos, the mythical king of Argos and brother of Aegyptos, the mythical king of Egypt. We are talking about mythology and poetry here, not history, but even if you want to try and find historical facts behind mythology, Danaos is closer linked to the Pelasgians, not to the later Greek tribes.

Well this is exactly what you see. Its arguing dispute between Argos and Sparta for supremacy, but the both states are from so called Dorian's group. Sparta showing dirty shirts Argives are from Egypt so they don't have right claim. How Danaos can be linked to Pelasgians when you have Pelasgian's king statement they coming from different stock? See this: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...odotus&f=false
From 53,1- onward

Yes its only a myth we all know, but can we not say the same for The Iliad and Odysea, but is well we all know is some historic accurate in them too. After all some myths are based on true events.

Don't use please wiki you will learn nothing from it. Only useful thing is if you don't know where Cappadocia is for example.

I see we are both agree that Pelasgians are Acheans, and Herodotus is saying Pelasgians are not Hellenes and in some point in history they have start speaking the same language.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:40 AM.


Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.