Macedonians

Dibran said:
Bronze age actually. Someone responded to you last page. It was before 1000BC. Genetically it came out North-European like. In all probability a Proto-Thracian.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Seems it points to reject some of the anti Albanian agendas.
 
Yetos said:
BYE BYE BLEVINS13
Forum members have memmory on what is published,
most are more than 2 years, before Lazarides papper,
look how many years you are,
Only Blinded by ultranationalist hate like you, can not See and ask sources, Which I am forced to wrie at bottom of post.
With an ancestry of 10-14% Steppe
the lowest Altaic component in all IE, almost 0%, even after 400 Ottoman-Turkish occupation,
Only one sample of Ydna N found until now, at more than 20 000 000 Greeks of Hellas and diaspora (one found in Peloponese)
There is NO chance that Greeks and especially the Mycenean part, to be origined from Seima Turbino.
Seima Turbino is a culture of Ydna N, and heavily charched with Altaic Component.
GENNETICS SPEAK
if we follow the theory of Antoni, or Gibutas
which does not fit in Helladic space, and Genetics,
Then Greeks both Linguistically and gennetical Origin from Yamnaa, and Vucedol-Vatin alternative name Cetina,
This is expressed By 1928, and has archailogical evidences, Carl Blegen,
which is the descent of Greeks from Vucedol-Vatin (Cetine),
in fact Cetina is also a big split, giving also Latin to West, etc
IRELAND GENETICALLY IS MORE POSSIBLE FOR SEIMA TURBINO, THAN GREECE, DUE to Altaic component
The Genetical structure of Greece, almost Palaiolithic and Neolithic mixture,
with the lowest STEPPE, and almost Zero Altaic,
Shows other Theories as primary,
Especially the Mycenean Branch Genetics Suggest rather a Neolithic origin
or a South Caucasos origin, Armenia High Lands
The R1a in Greece, and Greek world, is the only Ydna mark That may connect Greek to Baltics, As Hammond express it, (although I disagree)
and came from the possible road of Yamnaa to Vucedol-Vatin (Cetina) (Croatia/Serbia today) with descent of Greeks at 3000 BC to the area of proto-Greeks
Period,
Tumuli was used By all Proto-Greeks, was used by Myceneans, and its evolution gave the famous Makedonian Toumbas, which are typically and characteristic
and IS NOT ONLY Albanian, As you like it to be in your Brain, and in your Dreams,
Btw
did you go to a doctor to help you with Illyromania and Albanian only case?
Don't leave it, it will hurt you more in Future,
using Schopenhauer by the book, and step by step, makes people blind, and lost in space, or Only in, mass usage of Schopehauer it is just a shelf-exille from truth.
BYE BYE BLIND BLEVINS

Seima Turbino culture

TheAltai Mountainsin what is now southern Russia and central Mongolia have been identified as the point of origin of the cultural enigma of Seima-Turbino phenomenon.[7] The culture spread from these mountains to the west and to the east.[8] Artefact types such as spearheads with hooks, single-bladed knives and socketed axes with geometric designs traveled west and east.[9]
migrations spread the Uralic languagesacross Europe and Asia.[11]
Notable is the similiarity between the range of Haplogroup N3a3’6, especially in the western part of Eurasia and the distribution of the Seima-Turbino trans-cultural phenomenon during the interval of 4.2–3.7 kya. [13] Carriers of N3a1-B211, the early branch of N3a, could have migrated to the eastern fringes of Europe by the same Seima-Turbino groups. However earlier migration(s) cannot be ruled out either; a study of ancient DNA revealed a 7,500-year-old influx from Siberia to northeast Europe. [14] [15]

BLEVINS
THIS IS SEIMA-TURBINO
ALTAIC
URALIC LANGUAGES
Hg N
I tend to keep calm and show respect to you.
But your egoism, Tumuli is Only Albanian origin
did not leave me more, patience has limits.
SO FORUM MEMBER BLEVINS13 WHICH BEFORE LAZARIDES PAPPER TOLD US OF HIS MYCENEAN ANCESTRY Due to R1b
Now tells us that Myceneans were Altaic connected, SPOKE URALIC LANGUAGES, and were heavily charched with Hg N genetically.
:useless: :useless: :useless: :useless: :useless:





SO THIS MEMBER,
BLINDED BY ULTRA NATIONALISM.
WITH MAYBE TRAUMAS IN HIS PSYCHOLOGY.
NOW TELL US THAT MYCENEANS
WERE CONNECTED WITH ALTAI Mt (nomatter Altaic component is almost Zero) :petrified:
SPOKE URALIC LANGUAGES, (Mycenean is one of the most typical IE) :petrified:
WERE HEAVILY hg Ydna N (Almost 0%, only one found until now in whole Greek nation) :petrified:
:petrified: :petrified: :petrified: :petrified:

WHAT CAN SOMEONE SAY?
Except a wish for Peace of Mind.
I am sure Gods are with him,
Gods protect and take care of such guys.
you could read at least the Carl Blegen and Giannopoulos, and escape from your hell,
even read about Seima-Turbino culture.
or even trust Lazarides papper,
But No, you insisted,
may Gods protect your soul, cause mind ......
You were and asking fo it,
you scratch the sheperd's bat wrong way. :innocent: :innocent: :innocent:
Blevins the Catacomb culture, or the S Caucasos cultures were not enough for you,
you have to Go to Altaic mountains and uralic languages?
or you never of other IE cultures outside steppe?
a pathetic pittyfull aproach, by member Blevins13
guided by hate of ultranationalism
which with strange methods,
want us to Believe that Myceneans are steppe Altaic people,
and Spoke Uralic languages
while Lazarides papper on Myceneans is clear of S Caucasos and Armenia highlands origin
with low average 14% (10-20%) of Steppe, and Zero Altaic
BLEVINS MYCENEANS DID NOT SPOKE URALIC,
AS YOU LIKE THEM TO BE.
BYE BYE
The Academic pappers you ask

  • Marchenko et al. 2017.
  • ^ Anthony 2007, pp. 447.
  • ^ A Dictionary of Archaeology, edited by Ian Shaw, Robert Jameson, page 517
  • ^ Frachetti, Michael David, Pastoralist Landscapes and Social Interaction in Bronze Age Eurasia, pp. 52–3
  • ^ Anthony 2007, pp. 444-7.
  • ^ Anthony 2007, pp. 443-4.
  • ^ Jump up to:a b Anthony 2007.
  • ^ Jump up to:a b Chernykh, E.N. (2008). "Formation of the Eurasian "Steppe Belt" of Stockbreeding cultures". Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia. 35 (3): 36–53. doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2008.11.003.
  • ^ Chernykh 1992, p.220-21, figs. 74, 75.
  • ^ Christian 1998.
  • ^ Jump up to:a b Keys, David (January 2009). "Scholars crack the code of an ancient enigma". BBC History Magazine. 10 (1): 9.
  • ^ Higham, C.; Higham, T.; Kijngam, A. (2011), "Cutting a Gordian Knot: the Bronze Age of Southeast Asia: origins, timing and impact", Antiquity, 85 (328): 583–598, doi:10.1017/S0003598X00067971
  • ^ E. Chernykh The “Steppe Belt” of stockbreeding cultures in Eurasia during the Early Metal Age Trab. Prehist., 65 (2008), pp. 73-93, 10.3989/tp.2008.08004
  • ^ C. Der Sarkissian, O. Balanovsky, G. Brandt, V. Khartanovich, A. Buzhilova, S. Koshel, V. Zaporozhchenko, D. Gronenborn, V. Moiseyev, E. Kolpakov, et al., "Genographic Consortium Ancient DNA reveals prehistoric gene-flow from siberia in the complex human population history of North East Europe" PLoS Genet., 9 (2013), p. e1003296
  • ^ "The American Journal of Human Genetics: Volume 99, Issue 1: Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup N: A Non-trivial Time-Resolved Phylogeography that Cuts across Language Families", 7 July 2016, Pages 163-173
  • ^ http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/4182/4018
  • ^ Lalueza-Fox, C.; Sampietro, M. L.; Gilbert, M. T. P.; Castri, L.; Facchini, F.; Pettener, D.; Bertranpetit, J. (2004), "Unravelling migrations in the steppe: mitochondrial DNA sequences from ancient central Asians", Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271 (1542): 941–947, doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2698, PMC 1691686, PMID 15255049
  • ^ Keyser, Christine; Bouakaze, Caroline; Crubézy, Eric; Nikolaev, Valery G.; Montagnon, Daniel; Reis, Tatiana; Ludes, Bertrand (2009), "Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people", Human Genetics, 126 (3): 395–410, doi:10.1007/s00439-009-0683-0, PMID 19449030

bye bye little Goebels
Click to expand...
As far as I know, Seima Turbino might have not been Uralic speakers. There's not a consensus over them.
 
Hellenism and the making of modern Greece: time, language, space

Antonis Liakos (Athens)

Learning to be Greeks through the appropriation of historical time, language identity and space symbolism


I awoke with this marble head in my hands
which exhausts my elbows and I do not know where to
set it down.
It was falling into the dream as I was coming out of the
dream.
Our lives joined thus and it will be difficult to part
them.
George Seferis, Mythical Story



3. Revivalism





Greek historiography is a product of the Greek national state. During the foundation of the new state the constitutive myth was the resurrection of the mythical phoenix. Its significance was that Greece resurrected itself, like the mythical Phoenix, after having been under the subjugation of the Macedonians, the Romans, the Byzantines, and the Turks. The first rector of the University of Athens in 1837, Constantine Schinas, referred to the metaphor of an enslaved Greece handed over by the Macedonians to the Romans and then by the Byzantines to the Turks. That was the first official imagination of Greek history in the aftermath of the war of liberation in 1821. As a consequence, the primary period that was incorporated into the national feeling of history was the period of classical Antiquity. The appropriation of this period was established during the period of the Enlightenment’s influence on Greece, in the fifty years or so before the Greek revolution, and, though not without disagreement or reservation from the post-Byzantine tradition of the Orthodox Church, it proved quite strong so to prevail in the national consciousness of Modern Greeks. Yet, in contrast to most young nations which were expected to construct their own self-image, the myth of Ancient Greece was also powerful outside the Greek-speaking society of the Ottoman Empire. Modern Greeks acquired a passport, without much pain, compare for instance to Balkan neighbours or other new-born nations, to introduce themselves to Europe and the world.

The story of how the myth of Ancient Greece was incorporated into Modern Greek nationalideology is complex and controversial. The most powerful tradition in Europe, even before the creation of national states, was the tradition of written texts: Greek, Latin and Hebrew. This written tradition was the corpus and the locus where pre-national history were shaped. Before the emergence of nation-states, myths of national origins were connected to this written tradition. Greeks appropriated a great part of this learned tradition and transformed it into a national tradition. This appropriation was not an isolated case. Hellenism, as a cultural topos, was an intellectual product of the Renaissance, which was subsequently renovated through intellectual trends ranging from the Enlightenment to the Romanticism. As concepts, Hellenism and Revival were strictly interconnected. Had the concept of the Renaissance introduced a threefold concept of time (Ancient, Medieval and Modern), revivalism was established as the intellectual model in culture. In this sense, each major change in culture, until romanticism, was presented as a phenomenon of revival. Indeed, nationalism can be defined, in this framework, as the “myth of historical renovation”. The incorporation of Antiquity, as a result, constitutes not simply the beginning of the national narrative but actually the construction of the object of this narrative. For Greeks, to feel as national subjects means to internalize their relationship with Ancient Greece.

The revival of Antiquity in Modern Greece was not aimed exclusively at the legitimization of genealogy, because Classical Antiquity was also projected as the ideal model for the organization of a modern society. One of the most important works of early modern Greek historiography, George Kozakis Tipaldos’ Philosophical essay on the progress and decline of old Greece (1839), reflects this attitude. The exemplary and nomothetic function of the ancient world does not concern exclusively the construction of the Modern Greek state. It constitutes part of a transcultural tradition. This important functional role of the other (i.e., the Ancient) world, deeply embedded in historical consciousness, relates to notions of authority, power, holiness and truth. In this way the concepts with which we understand the world should originate from another world in the remote past. To this same tradition could be ascribed the uses of the Torah for Israel, and of the Koran and the Sharia for the Muslim nations.


4. Continuity





During the first decades of Greek independence, the initial present-past relationship was composed of two alternative poles: the national resurrection (the 1821 Revolution and the formation of the Greek state) and Classical Antiquity. The myth of the reborn Phoenix, however, was too weak to sustain a national ideology, especially since it involved an immense time gap. Moreover, it excluded an important part of present experience, the religious one. The blank pages of Greek history became visible in the middle of the 19th century. In 1852, the historian, Spyridon Zambelios, pointed out, “We only hope that all those scattered and torn pieces of our history will be articulated and acquired completeness and unity”. Filling these gaps meant furnishing criteria and signification in order to appropriate different periods such as the Macedonian domination of Greece, the Hellenistic and Roman period, the Byzantine era, along with the Venetian and Ottoman rule.

In this view, history is identified with the nation’s mission and as a consequence, it is Divine Providence that attributes a certain meaning to it. The temporal incorporation also refers to the nation's relation with the surrounding world. In other words, it constitutes a national reading of world history. This is a reading of world history from a Eurocentric point of view.. In fact, this perspective lays the foundations of a dialectic between European and Greek national historiography. On the one hand, it aims at the emancipation of national history encapsulated in a European point of view (the contempt for Byzantium as a degeneration of the Roman empire) while on the other, it evaluates national history for its contribution to European history, that is, the history of Western civilization.

The filling of these gaps was the task of Greek historiography during the second half of nineteenth century. The incorporation into the national narrative of the periods that would contribute to the making of national history took place in stages which endures more than three generations of historians, from Koraes to Paparrigopoulos and then to Lambros, and not without objection and cultural debate. The timing of each temporal incorporation was a function of a relationship between the Greek and western European historiography. For example, the appropriation of the Macedonian and Hellenistic periods, through the concept of national supremacy, was facilitated by the disjuncture of the concept of civic freedom from classical Greece. Within the debate concerning the re-evaluation of the Hellenistic period (in German historiography of the 19th century), it became possible to present Hellenism (with the meaning and the cultural characteristics that were attributed to it at the time) as the predecessor of Christianity and to establish the imperial ideal (especially in the works of Johann Gustav Droysen). However, the contempt for Byzantium of Voltaire, Gibbon and Hegel, in other words the negative attitude that developed towards it within the framework of the Enlightenment, did not allow it to be incorporated at this stage. Moreover, since “Hellenism”, as a cultural construction of western civilization, was conceived by Philhellenes as the revival of the Ancient to the modern Greece, the rejection of Byzantium along with all other historical periods between the classical age and the Greek revolt in 1821 was unavoidable. To span the huge difference between the classical ideal and the reality of Modern Greece, the concept of decline and fall was inevitable. Besides, the concept of revival itself actually entailed the concept of discontinuity because its mental presupposition is a time of disappearance between the first and the second life. The concept of “relics” omnipresent in the early modern and the romantic culture imposes a moment of death, of mourning and melancholy, but also gives the rhythm of the successive renaissances, revival, re-evolutions, reformations and of all the European cultural phenomena characterized with concepts of a new starting.

But, how was a national narrative possible with such a discontinuity?

The appropriation of the Byzantine period has major significance, since it illustrates the transition from one mental structure of historical imagination to another: from the schema of revival to one of continuity. It is a transition that primarily concerns the concept of historical time. Once this transition has been accomplished, each historical period would find its place within this schema. The result and also partly the cause of this great mental change was the monumental work of Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos History of the Greek Nation (1860-1874). Paparrigopoulos, honored as "national historian", created the grand narrative and introduced a new style in writing Greek national historiography. Although his predecessors had employed the third person in referring to their object, Paparrigopoulos imposed a very dominant use of “we” and “us” in describing the Greeks of the past, in this way identifying the reader with the national subject. In addition, the appropriation of Byzantine history changed the content of national identity and transformed it from an imported by scholars into a native produced product This modification acquired the features of a “revolt” against a view of the national self that had been imposed on Greece by European classicism. This transformation was a response to a general feeling of 19th c. Greek intellectuals: “The Past? Alas, we allow foreigners to present it according to their own prejudices and their own way of thought and interests.”


6. National genealogy



The constitution of the “unity” of Greek history also created its narrative form. The innovation in Paparrigopulos’ work lies in the fact that it reifies Greek history, and organizes it around a main character, giving a different meaning to each period. He introduced the terms First Hellenism, Macedonian Hellenism, Christian Hellenism, Medieval Hellenism, Modern Hellenism. The first Hellenism was ancient Hellenism, i.e. the classical Hellenism that declined after the Peloponnesian Wars. It was succeeded by Macedonian Hellenism, which was actually “a slight transformation of the first Hellenism.” This one was followed by Christian Hellenism, which was later replaced by Medieval Hellenism, which brought Modern Hellenism to life in the 13th century....
Click to expand...

Antonis Liakos-Historian Curriculum Vitae
 
Piro Ilir said:
As far as I know, Seima Turbino might have not been Uralic speakers. There's not a consensus over them.
Click to expand...

hm
might not
might yes,

it was a culture of hg N for certain, so Uralic fits better,
Don't you think.

Besides

The resulting radiocarbon (14C) chronology for the western Siberian sites (22nd–20th centuries cal BC)
Notice the above is the max back, they centuries from Central Asia to reach West Siberia

Hettites who had simmilar are about 1600 BC

Same is the high change of Minyan (NOTICE MINYANS, Not MINOANS) control and culture
to Mycenean control and culture,
ατ 1650 when Hettites are in minor Asia, Myceneans are already here,

so you have to face the dilema,
If Myceneans are from the area, in which Hettites enter, How come they had such similarity, as pre-Hettit culture, Notice Mycenean tombs before 1650 BC, Hatussa 1600 BC. if remember correct.
then you go to the North way, from Yamnaa, to Balkans to South Greece,
there is the other entrance to Greece,
Here you have to find the old Blegen theory, the archiological connection, as described by Giannopoulos.

Why? Cause Mycenean are also the Long Corridor culture, the δρομος as called today, the Σικος and the Πτερον a structure not found in Asia till then, no matter Megalithic structures are even today magnificent.
and their Kurgan are estimated to evolve their way, while their primary earlier form
so Myceneans and kurgans already existed from 2200 BC, in co-existance with Minyans, ?
I did not remember the Archaiologist who found such in Lerna and Leykada.
besides the Mycaenean mettalurgy has nothing to do with Seima Turbino, or with Hettites mettalurgy,
Mycenean is tin vs Copper, Seima is Arsenic vs copper,
Almost same littlelittle bit earlier few centuries but mainly 1 century earlier is the Vucedol-Vatin devstation to Greece, mainly to area of proto-Greeks
the tombs of Cetina as possibly is known to you,
besides we see a strange change to tomb looking like small boxes, non Minoan, since they put them to pottery,
Anyway, it is difficult to distinguish,
but generally we see these strange,
Minyan culture, certainly autochthonus, possible G2 and other, no need to search now
Minoan culture which is J2a with no steppe
No Steppe admixture culture until 2300 BC.
Vucedol vatin culture entrance from North (para-Cetinas) possibly some Hg I
Mycenean culture which is J2a which is ave 14% simmilar even today after the Slavic invasions,

Both populations evolute to Greek till 1600 BC
The Nothern are the proto-Greek or NW dialects or Paleo-Balkan in the area where georgiev puts them
the other is Mycenean and S Greek, a substractum that creates also the inner aspirations of evolution of Greek language, to classical, while some return back due to Makedonian influence in Koine (φορθακα - Βατραχις, Φρεαρ-Βρυση)

the only entrance from East in that era, in the Mycenean world
is the Arzawwa-Asuwa when were hunted by Hettites,
so how come this steppe 14% enter to Myceneans and not to Minoans,
The answer is somewhere above,
or somewhere we can not see until today,

about R1a in balkans
Balkans have a pecculiar very high diversity of R1a,
in other contitions the numerous varities could claim as homeland of r1a Balkans
but we consider it as a sink phenomenon,
the r1a -Z93 found in Thracian tomb is at least a millenium younger,
yet this does not exclude the possibility of being far ancient to pre and proto Thracian or forms that spread from yamnaa
But most possible for me is to be Scythian from Srubnaya.

Anyway Seima Turbino was a culture of N Hg.
although their usage of chariots etc are simmilar to Mycaenean,
but not identical mettalurgy, tin vs arsenic

The time Distance from W Siberia Seima Turbino to the high transform of culture to Mycenean surely is about 4 centuries, and is allowing such aproache and possibility
Yet the other elements of myceane, as also their genetics, and the continuity of Minyans and NW Greeks hmm ... pale colour
the ave 14% steppe could enter from Arzawa, from Vucedol, even from women slaves and marriage,
if 1 out 10 male of a generation takes foreign women, it is about 5% to next male generation?, or I am wrong,
I am not certain for above but seems logicalThat is all,
suggest you see the minyan minoan mycenean pottery to understand.

Aditional if you want to search deeper,
you must search how much Altaic component have the R1a cultures from the main 3 types of R1a in Balkans,
cause in population that has 0 Altaic, it is impossible to be ancestor of a population of that was heaby in Altaic.
so if Myceneans are indead connected with R1a-Z93 of Thracian tombs in Bulgaria then this R1a-Z93 should have limited to zero Altaic component,

Until then the possibilty of Thracian and Mycenean connection via a pre Mycaene, pre Thracian population from somewhere Ukraine and generally N Pontos area is alive, but does not certified,

I hope i make my shelf understood.

to conclude
The gennetics of Mycaeneans Show rather an adaptation of Seima-Turbino mobility,
than a genetical relativity, and continuity.
and until now, this adaptation of Seima-Turbino mobility culture,
is not certified if that enter from S Caucasos before or same time with Hettites, straight from minor Asia,
or via N of Pontos areas. (today ukraine, Georgia, Abhazia etc) via the Thrace. (today Bulgaria)

a good example is Ireland,
no matter the Western country of Europe, and need 2 times to pass the sea,
Yet the Steppe and Altaic components percentages are significant, and surely describe and drive us to certain conclusions
but that does not happens in Helladic space,

Period

Conclusion
So if someone wrote in Forum about Illyria, whatever he wanted, with easy conclusions,
cause there is a late such post somewhere there
this does NOT mean is correct, but rather a biased post, possible for inner-consumption,
We are used to such 'works' of easy conclusion, for easy mass consuption,
sometimes Doctoras are giving to such works, specially to Golden boys of political parties,.
What face here by this 'work', -lets name it such- is this: How come a culture of hg N in 4 centuries pass to a culture of J2 far away, with different genetics, meaning ho Inheritage.
so a possible solution is via R1a -Z93, NOTICE A Possible
so 'OK', we found Gold' Myceneans were Siberians'' :useless: :useless: :useless:
it is typical and easy pass to ignorants, if you make amazing cover, and nice images, and say words like 'Only in'
But is rubbish

the Logic of such works, is the Bellow
Guitar is a Instrument (music)
Policeman is an instrument (of law)
so Policeman is a Guitar.

Do you understand why I wanted to stop Blevins13, before say his 'opinion' which is a work in Illyria forum, but tottaly crap.
But he insisted to spread the crap work, the logic of policeman is a Guitar.
Don't worry, such Forums exist many in Greece, and all over the world,
Using their 'proves' and Logic, I can prove you that Greeks came from Andromeda 200 000 before,
and Seima-turbino were reptilians from the warm area of planet Mars,
I warn many times the Albanians of Forum about a stupid tv-person, who can explain and prove whatever, in Top Channel,
Not to believe him.

look at him
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpraT2zpRLQ
he can persuade you that earth is empty inside, and monsters live there, locked, waiting to come out,
He almost persuade Greeks before 1 decade that Incas were Greeks,
it is pathetic, to be easily conviced, and worst is to produce such.
 
Last edited:
Im reading this discussion and is very good i like it ,i watched newest Lecture about 'The World of Early Macedon' from Prof.Kenneth W.Harl in few times he highlights that "Macedonians were not Greeks at all" , this Professor is very close collegue to Eugene Borza , historian known like "Macedonian Specialist".You can watch it Lecture here ;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsqyzECK7xs&t=4s
All rest is on you...
 
I know most of scholar who do not believe makedonian were Greeks,
But this belong also to above post I wrote,

There is an evolution of aspiration from Proto-Greek to Attic and etc S Greek languages,
that is noticed and specified many times, and for many is a distinguish among Greeks and 'non Greeks'
Some consider Greeks only the Mycenean World, and not the NW dialects,
the ancient Makedonian Language is written by Hesychios of Alexandreia,

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

generally there is a difference among proto-Makedonians and Makedonian Kingdom Makedonians
the primary Makedonians are the Lokroi, of Upper Makedonia
and the Argeiades (the Dynasty) of central Makedonia,

Secondary group is The Brygians
the term Edessa is from Brygian origin.
Herodotus places them to Thracians,
modern Linguists consider them as Paleo-Balkans, Centum with Satem cover due to Thracians,
The Brygian homeland is in today Albania,
When the Illyrians came they were Pushed to Makedonia and Paionia (today Slavic Makedonia)
They finally left for minor Asia, while their remnants are the Mygdones,
they fully assimilated to makedonian kingdom,
There is strange connection among Brygians and Makedonians, a hiden relativity, a mystery,
Notice when Alexander was in Gordion Phrygia, did not sleep, cause he expected and hoped to that connection,
so Phrygians support him against Persia,

a Third nation is Bottiaioi,
Strabo names them as Cretans in origin,

Now I will refer to Aristoteles,
Aristoteles maention the Dodona, the most Sacred place of NW Greek dialect speakers
the other is central Greece the river Hellanas, the games
the games of Hellanas were moved to Olympia to make the Olympic games.
well Aristoteles Uses 2 words for the people and priests of Dodona Epiros,
ΓΡΑΙΚΟΙ, ΣΕΛΛΟΙ, Graikoi, Selloi
meaning Greek and Hellanes, (Sol <-> Hellios)

Yet Phillip of Makedon, moves to Samothraca in Thrace, to the ancient Kabeires to get married, a priestress
So the Makedonian Kingdom is mainly a unification among the Makedonians and the Brygians,
which later, sometimes violent, assimilated the Cretans Bottiaioi.

So
Primary thoughts of those who did not accept ancient Makedonians as Greek nation is because they were not Myceneans, and outside Mycenean world,
Makedonian Necropolis have their own style Tumuli, sometimes very affected by Mycenean arxhitecture and style.
Yet Makedonians never claimed Mycenean ancestry as far as I know, but from Heracles, they were Herakleidae,
and because lately I heard about Hercules = Mycaene,
yet in Sparta we see that Hercules was introduce by Dorians, (and was not an Atreides, meaning Hercules although born in Argos might not be connected with Mycenean,)
(Argos gives 2 Heroes, Heracles, and Perseus )
who are Hellanes so Selloi,
herodotus names clearly Dorians Ελληνικον and nothing to do with Pelasgians,
Makedonians also claim Heracles and Dorians as ancestry.
that is why Argeiads (Makedonians) did not burn Sparta,but punish them with eternal shame (Αλεξανδρος και Ελληνες πλην Λακεδαιμονιοις / Notice uses the Mycenean name, not the Dorian one Sparta)

Secondary is their language,
Makedonian dialect or Language belongs to NW Greek ones, the primitive ones comparing the Classical Greek
so Θαλασσα them is Δαλαγχαν Thalassa-Dalagha D-Θ Dios Theos
also Berenika Ferenike
Kefale Keb(a)le B<-> F (ph)
HERE Must Notice that PIE had B and D and especially Θ maybe did exist in PIE, so NW Greek Dialects -among them Makedonian- are primitive Closer to PIE comparing Classical Greek
and Greek and Brygian were Isotones languages


I wil stop here,
it is like Scands or English with Deutsch, or Dutch with Austrian,
they are Germanic, with their own way each.
imagine a modern English with a proto-Germanic speaker.
or a Latino-Iberian with a Roman
 
RagnarofMacedon said:
Im reading this discussion and is very good i like it ,i watched newest Lecture about 'The World of Early Macedon' from Prof.Kenneth W.Harl in few times he highlights that "Macedonians were not Greeks at all" , this Professor is very close collegue to Eugene Borza , historian known like "Macedonian Specialist".You can watch it Lecture here ;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsqyzECK7xs&t=4s
All rest is on you...
Click to expand...

The consensus is that they were Greeks or para-Greeks. Mycenaeans too were technically para-Greeks, and classical Greeks would have had significant difficulties understanding them. With Macedonians the evidence suggests that Attic Greeks could in fact understand bits and pieces of vernacular Macedonian (see Curtius Rufus). It all comes down to your definition of 'Greek' I guess.
 
markod said:
The consensus is that they were Greeks or para-Greeks. Mycenaeans too were technically para-Greeks, and classical Greeks would have had significant difficulties understanding them. With Macedonians the evidence suggests that Attic Greeks could in fact understand bits and pieces of vernacular Macedonian (see Curtius Rufus). It all comes down to your definition of 'Greek' I guess.
Click to expand...

No he clearly said that Macedonians were not Greeks at all , but many of them ( Barbarians ) accepted Hellenism or so called Greek culture and language , nor in that time Greeks considered Macedonians like Greeks , or we watched different Lecture ?
Also said that NON-Greeks were not allowed to marry GREEK womans unless they accept Greek culture and Language ( In that time Hellenism was big thing ), so Phillip II Macedon accepted Greek culture and language to marry Olympia (Epirus Greek) , so Alexander III of Macedon was half greek half Macedonian.
Also he said when Macedonian warriors talking with Alexander they using their own language ( Macedonian ) , because Greeks can not understand them...
Are you wondering why 50,000 Greeks fight for Persian side Against Alexander and Macedonian in war?
Or what happened on Teba River ?
Or why in Macedonian phallags of 37,000 warrior only 7.000 were Hellenes ?
Anyways in that time Hellenism was more likely political thing than ethnic ?
Hellenes was different type of ethnicities Assyrians,Persian,Egyptians,Jews...
Anyways he clearly said that Macedonian were not Greeks at all , nor Greeks considered them in that time like Greeks, they were most similar to Thracians...

And stop with Bullshiet and propaganda thanks...
 
RagnarofMacedon said:
No he clearly said that Macedonians were not Greeks at all , but many of them ( Barbarians ) accepted Hellenism or so called Greek culture and language , nor in that time Greeks considered Macedonians like Greeks , or we watched different Lecture ?
Also said that NON-Greeks were not allowed to marry GREEK womans unless they accept Greek culture and Language ( In that time Hellenism was big thing ), so Phillip II Macedon accepted Greek culture and language to marry Olympia (Epirus Greek) , so Alexander III of Macedon was half greek half Macedonian.
Also he said when Macedonian warriors talking with Alexander they using their own language ( Macedonian ) , because Greeks can not understand them...
Are you wondering why 50,000 Greeks fight for Persian side Against Alexander and Macedonian in war?
Or what happened on Teba River ?
Or why in Macedonian phallags of 37,000 warrior only 7.000 were Hellenes ?
Anyways in that time Hellenism was more likely political thing than ethnic ?
Hellenes was different type of ethnicities Assyrians,Persian,Egyptians,Jews...
Anyways he clearly said that Macedonian were not Greeks at all , nor Greeks considered them in that time like Greeks, they were most similar to Thracians...

And stop with Bullshiet and propaganda thanks...
Click to expand...

ok

As you like,

It does not matter what he Believes,
But what The Makedonians Believe,
So what he says, is just ....

and since Ancient spoke the language that is written in Hesychios,
since they believe them shelves as Greeks,
why I should change them today,

Why should I trust a modern scholar,
and not the many Ancient sources?

Does it matter what Borza believes, 2300 years after?
When the Makedonians claim other things?
and we have their language written down !!!
At least can Borza tell us wht Language the Makedonians spoke?
I Prefer to believe Strabo book VII chapter 9, who was alive that era,

and plz Don't mix Makedonians with Makedonian kingdom,
makedonian Kingdom had assimilated a lot of thracian tribes.
 
Yetos said:
ok

As you like,

It does not matter what he Believes,
But what The Makedonians Believe,
So what he says, is just ....

and since Ancient spoke the language that is written in Hesychios,
since they believe them shelves as Greeks,
why I should change them today,

Why should I trust a modern scholar,
and not the many Ancient sources?

Does it matter what Borza believes, 2300 years after?
When the Makedonians claim other things?
and we have their language written down !!!
At least can Borza tell us wht Language the Makedonians spoke?
I Prefer to believe Strabo book VII chapter 9, who was alive that era,

and plz Don't mix Makedonians with Makedonian kingdom,
makedonian Kingdom had assimilated a lot of thracian tribes.
Click to expand...

Yes we should ask Greeks of Anatolia if they believe if they are Macedonian......This certainly makes sense.

IMG_3245.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nik
RagnarofMacedon said:
No he clearly said that Macedonians were not Greeks at all , but many of them ( Barbarians ) accepted Hellenism or so called Greek culture and language , nor in that time Greeks considered Macedonians like Greeks , or we watched different Lecture ?
Also said that NON-Greeks were not allowed to marry GREEK womans unless they accept Greek culture and Language ( In that time Hellenism was big thing ), so Phillip II Macedon accepted Greek culture and language to marry Olympia (Epirus Greek) , so Alexander III of Macedon was half greek half Macedonian.
Also he said when Macedonian warriors talking with Alexander they using their own language ( Macedonian ) , because Greeks can not understand them...
Are you wondering why 50,000 Greeks fight for Persian side Against Alexander and Macedonian in war?
Or what happened on Teba River ?
Or why in Macedonian phallags of 37,000 warrior only 7.000 were Hellenes ?
Anyways in that time Hellenism was more likely political thing than ethnic ?
Hellenes was different type of ethnicities Assyrians,Persian,Egyptians,Jews...
Anyways he clearly said that Macedonian were not Greeks at all , nor Greeks considered them in that time like Greeks, they were most similar to Thracians...

And stop with Bullshiet and propaganda thanks...
Click to expand...

Welll he's wrong. Curtius actually says ".. understand them better." . That suggests Macedonian wasn't completely foreign to Attic speakers.
 
But to Demosthenes the Macedonian was completely foreign, but of course nothing to do with slavs.
 
LABERIA said:
But to Demosthenes the Macedonian was completely foreign, but of course nothing to do with slavs.
Click to expand...

You're conflating two issues. The question whether Macedonians were Hellenes and the question whether they were Greeks in the scientific sense. The Mycenaeans weren't Hellenes but they were Greek.
 
From what I observed, and I am always right: Only the Albanians ITT wrote sensible posts.

The others, lashed out with projections of their own insecurities.
 
blevins13 said:
Yes we should ask Greeks of Anatolia if they believe if they are Macedonian......This certainly makes sense.

View attachment 11016


from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
Click to expand...


How typical of you

9k=




Interesting the observation of yours,
But as always just the serpent spreads poison, Waiting for its ihead to be smashed,
Again scratching the sheperd's bat.


For Blevis13 the one who told us that Mycenean spoke Uralic and were hg Ydna N

How Others call the Makedonians
The era of Makedonian Kingdom before Alexandros
All minor Asia and Thrace were under Persian occupation,
Naqsh e Rostam Royal tombs of Achamenides
The Satrapies of Dareios


  1. baga \ vazraka \ Auramazdâ \ hya \ im
  2. âm \ bumâm \ adâ \ hya \ avam \ asm
  3. ânam \ adâ \ hya \ martiyam \ adâ \ h
  4. ya \ šiyâtim \ adâ \ martiyahyâ
  5. \ hya \ Dârayavaum \ xšâyathiyam \ ak
  6. unauš \ aivam \ parûvnâm \ xšâyath
  7. iyam \ aivam \ parûvnâm \ framâtâ
  8. ram \ adam \ Dârayavauš \ xšâyathiya \ va
  9. zraka \ xšâyathiya \ xšâyathiyânâm
  10. \ xšâyathiya \ dahyûnâm \ vispazanâ
  11. nâm \ xšâyathiya \ ahyâyâ \ bûmi
  12. yâ \ vazrakâyâ \ dûraiapiy \ Vištâs
  13. pahyâ \ puça \ Haxâmanišiya \ Pârsa \ P
  14. ârsahyâ \ puça \ Ariya \ Ariya \ ci
  15. ça \ thâtiy \ Dârayavauš \ xšâya
  16. thiya \ vašnâ \ Auramazdâhâ \ imâ \
  17. dahyâva \ tyâ \ adam \ agarbâyam \
  18. apataram \ hacâ \ Pârsâ \ adamšâm \
  19. patiyaxšayaiy \ manâ \ bâjim \ abara
  20. ha \ tvašâm \ hacâma \ athahya \ ava \ a
  21. kunava \ dâtam \ tya \ manâ \ avadiš \
  22. adâraiya \ Mâda \ Ûvja \ Parthava \ Harai
  23. va \ Bâxtriš \ Suguda \ Uvârazm
  24. iš \ Zraka \ Harauvatiš \ Thataguš \ Ga
  25. dâra \ Hiduš \ Sakâ \ haumavargâ \ Sa
  26. kâ \ tigraxaudâ \ Bâbiruš \ A
  27. thurâ \ Arabâya \ Mudrâya \ Armina
  28. \ Katpatuka \ Sparda \ Yauna \ Sakâ \ tyaiy \ pa
  29. radraya \Skudra \ Yaunâ \ takabarâ \ Putây
  30. â \ Kûšiyâ \ Maciyâ \ Karkâ \ thâtiy \ D

YAUNA in Greeks is Iones Ιωνες

Most of Anatolian, Arab, and generally East of Greeks, call the Greeks Yauna, Yunan, Yauva
Most West of Greece call the Greeks as Greeks,

So at Dareios Tomb are written the Satrapies he ruled,
We see 2 times the word Yauna,
1 as Yauna alone = The Ionia, The Anatolian Greek, The Greeks of minor Asia
2 as Yauna Takabara = Makedonia, The Greeks with flat hat, (shield hat) due to καυσια.

Same we found at Sussa Behistan Persepolis etc


So Blevins13,
You not of Mycenan ancestry, (neither do I),
Myceneans were not hg Ydna N, and did not spoke Uralic
and in Anatolia and generally East where you see Yauna Yavan Yunan means Greek,


THE GREEKS by their modern Persians

Yauna = Ionia (minor Asian Greeks)
Yauna Takabara (Makedonians)
Yauna Drayahya (Central Greeks)
Yauna Paradraya (N Aegean islands and Thrace, not the Thracians, Skudra)
Sparda (Sparta)


hmm
NOW I MUST THANK YOU BLEVINS13,
For giving me this fantastic IDEA, to mention, notice and post,
how the moderns of Makedonian Kingdom, Persians use to call them.


btw
I should be a healer, specialized in hazardous reptile poisons.









Bye bye Blevins13
These are not Anatolian Greeks, its Obvious what they believe.
6-e1bcb0cebfcf85cebdceafcebfcf85-1906-cf83cf84e1bdb6cf82-cf86cf85cebbceb1cebae1bdb2cf82-cf84cebfe1bfa6-cebccebfcebdceb1cf83cf84ceb7cf812.jpg

 
markod said:
You're conflating two issues. The question whether Macedonians were Hellenes and the question whether they were Greeks in the scientific sense. The Mycenaeans weren't Hellenes but they were Greek.
Click to expand...
Send a PM to him and ask for an explanation.
 
 
 
Ok another post out of subject by the 2 certain Albanians (Albano-NAZI)
who always have nothing to say, but they 'say', and only spread poison and throw mud on every thread about Greeks, I will ask to be removed,
 
Yetos said:
How typical of you

9k=




Interesting the observation of yours,
But as always just the serpent spreads poison, Waiting for its ihead to be smashed,
Again scratching the sheperd's bat.


For Blevis13 the one who told us that Mycenean spoke Uralic and were hg Ydna N

How Others call the Makedonians
The era of Makedonian Kingdom before Alexandros
All minor Asia and Thrace were under Persian occupation,
Naqsh e Rostam Royal tombs of Achamenides
The Satrapies of Dareios


  1. baga \ vazraka \ Auramazdâ \ hya \ im
  2. âm \ bumâm \ adâ \ hya \ avam \ asm
  3. ânam \ adâ \ hya \ martiyam \ adâ \ h
  4. ya \ šiyâtim \ adâ \ martiyahyâ
  5. \ hya \ Dârayavaum \ xšâyathiyam \ ak
  6. unauš \ aivam \ parûvnâm \ xšâyath
  7. iyam \ aivam \ parûvnâm \ framâtâ
  8. ram \ adam \ Dârayavauš \ xšâyathiya \ va
  9. zraka \ xšâyathiya \ xšâyathiyânâm
  10. \ xšâyathiya \ dahyûnâm \ vispazanâ
  11. nâm \ xšâyathiya \ ahyâyâ \ bûmi
  12. yâ \ vazrakâyâ \ dûraiapiy \ Vištâs
  13. pahyâ \ puça \ Haxâmanišiya \ Pârsa \ P
  14. ârsahyâ \ puça \ Ariya \ Ariya \ ci
  15. ça \ thâtiy \ Dârayavauš \ xšâya
  16. thiya \ vašnâ \ Auramazdâhâ \ imâ \
  17. dahyâva \ tyâ \ adam \ agarbâyam \
  18. apataram \ hacâ \ Pârsâ \ adamšâm \
  19. patiyaxšayaiy \ manâ \ bâjim \ abara
  20. ha \ tvašâm \ hacâma \ athahya \ ava \ a
  21. kunava \ dâtam \ tya \ manâ \ avadiš \
  22. adâraiya \ Mâda \ Ûvja \ Parthava \ Harai
  23. va \ Bâxtriš \ Suguda \ Uvârazm
  24. iš \ Zraka \ Harauvatiš \ Thataguš \ Ga
  25. dâra \ Hiduš \ Sakâ \ haumavargâ \ Sa
  26. kâ \ tigraxaudâ \ Bâbiruš \ A
  27. thurâ \ Arabâya \ Mudrâya \ Armina
  28. \ Katpatuka \ Sparda \ Yauna \ Sakâ \ tyaiy \ pa
  29. radraya \Skudra \ Yaunâ \ takabarâ \ Putây
  30. â \ Kûšiyâ \ Maciyâ \ Karkâ \ thâtiy \ D

YAUNA in Greeks is Iones Ιωνες

Most of Anatolian, Arab, and generally East of Greeks, call the Greeks Yauna, Yunan, Yauva
Most West of Greece call the Greeks as Greeks,

So at Dareios Tomb are written the Satrapies he ruled,
We see 2 times the word Yauna,
1 as Yauna alone = The Ionia, The Anatolian Greek, The Greeks of minor Asia
2 as Yauna Takabara = Makedonia, The Greeks with flat hat, (shield hat) due to καυσια.

Same we found at Sussa Behistan Persepolis etc


So Blevins13,
You not of Mycenan ancestry, (neither do I),
Myceneans were not hg Ydna N, and did not spoke Uralic
and in Anatolia and generally East where you see Yauna Yavan Yunan means Greek,


THE GREEKS by their modern Persians

Yauna = Ionia (minor Asian Greeks)
Yauna Takabara (Makedonians)
Yauna Drayahya (Central Greeks)
Yauna Paradraya (N Aegean islands and Thrace, not the Thracians, Skudra)
Sparda (Sparta)


hmm
NOW I MUST THANK YOU BLEVINS13,
For giving me this fantastic IDEA, to mention, notice and post,
how the moderns of Makedonian Kingdom, Persians use to call them.


btw
I should be a healer, specialized in hazardous reptile poisons.









Bye bye Blevins13
These are not Anatolian Greeks, its Obvious what they believe.
6-e1bcb0cebfcf85cebdceafcebfcf85-1906-cf83cf84e1bdb6cf82-cf86cf85cebbceb1cebae1bdb2cf82-cf84cebfe1bfa6-cebccebfcebdceb1cf83cf84ceb7cf812.jpg

Click to expand...

I never said Mycenaean spoke Uralic you did. I said that have nothing to do with Kurgan people because they are related to Seima - Turbino Culture, while Ancient Macedonian have a lot to do with Kurgan culture and tumulus burials not shaft graves.
Read again this info, it seems you have forgotten it.
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml#Greek

So it seems that Macedonians had nothing to do with Mycenaean and with modern Greeks (after population exchange).


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 747121 times.

Back
Top