Bronze Age Epirus

[Angela]

Since some Albanian members are dying to discuss this topic, I am providing them with a dedicated thread.



"Angela:
I linked the article for one purpose and one purpose only, i.e. for the fact that The Encyclopedia Britannica endorsed that Epirus was part of the peripheral Mycenaean world and that this has been shown through multiple sites having material evidence of Mycenaean links.


"Epirus has been occupied since at least Neolithic times by seafarers along the coast and by hunters and shepherds in the interior who brought with them the Greek language.^[1]These people buried their leaders in large tumulicontaining shaft graves, similar to the Mycenaean tombs, indicating an ancestral link between Epirus and the Mycenaean civilization.^[1] A number of Mycenaean remains have been found in Epirus,^[9] especially at the most important ancient religious sites in the region, the Necromanteion (Oracle of the Dead) on the Acheron river, and the Oracle of Zeus at Dodona.^[1]"

The number 1 refers to the Encyclopedia.

This is the consensus: that's why it wound up in an encyclopedia. Had the authors of the article wished to cite books and papers, it would have been an easy thing to do.

There's no need to re-invent the wheel here."



This is the poster Ernekar's response:
"

Originally Posted by Johane Derite
The wikipedia link says the map is created by Megiastis and cites David Tandy as a source. I'm in the process of trying to find a pdf to see if the map accurately represents what his book says.




There is a chance that this David Tandy does say that there are Mycenean remains(by remains they probably mean pottery) at those places(can't find the pdf either).
But then again, i have seen Mycenean pottery even at italian sites which were 100% surely inhabited by locals, and not by myceneans. So mycenean pottery does not indicate mycenean presence, or else great areas of the mediterranean could be classified as mycenean.
And no scholars define settlements as mycenean based only on some small finds of pottery and such. They gotta have the tholos tombs to be able to be properly defined as mycenean, as the tholos is one of the things which the constuct 'Mycenean' has been based on.
If we would go by the pottery=presence method(which i am an opponent of), then half of italy could be defined as illyrian in the iron age(because of presence of illyrian type swords practically everywhere), but those swords are probably just indications of trade across the adriatic.

In the same way, the occurences of mycenean 'remains'/pottery(if the map is actually true), would just be sign of trade or piracy with/by the surrounding groups. And it would be pretty much expected that some mycenean pottery show up in epirus, as its only a few hundred km away from the mycenean core area(peloponnes).

So in my opinion it is very misleading to post such a map while implying some major mycenean presence in epirus, because that can simply not be backed by any of the data we have available."

This is the link to David Tandy's compendium.

https://books.google.com/books?id=8P...ents+in+Epirus

The map which it is claimed is based on his work:

Checking every site against the text seems to require buying the paperback. Without doing that I fail to see how anyone could know it's incorrect.

Some other sources which came up in my search:

The Bronze Age in Epirus:
https://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/20...epirus-part-2/

Bronze Age site of Glykys Limin in Epirus:
https://books.google.com/books?id=r6...Epirus&f=false

 

[Ernekar]

In my post i specifically wrote that there is a chance that he wrote those remains were in those places:

There is a chance that this David Tandy does say that there are Mycenean remains(by remains they probably mean pottery) at those places(can't find the pdf either).

And it would be pretty much expected that some mycenean pottery show up in epirus, as its only a few hundred km away from the mycenean core area(peloponnes)

So i have never claimed the map is incorrect.
Although i did claim, and still claim, that the presence of some mycenean material doesnt mean that the myceneans lived there.

There are many places around the mediterranean where mycenean pottery can be found, but where there is a consensus that myceneans did not live.
As it is getting late i won't post it now. But for those interested, maybe i can post a map of mycenean finds throughout the mediterranean in the coming days.

And as many seem interested in this topic, i will also post some relevant papers on bronze age Epirus in the coming days.

(ps. i don't see how it is relevant if it was albanian members who wanted to discuss this topic. In my opinion it would have sufficed to write that "some members are dying to discuss this topic", as i don't see how my ethnicity is relevant in this regard.)

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

There are many places around the mediterranean where mycenean pottery can be found, but where there is a consensus that myceneans did not live.

Since you believe that ancient cultures are constructed what you write doesn't make any sense.

Also, are you interested in the geographical extent of a 'fashion'?

If 'tholos tombs' are the defining characteristic of 'Minoan' & 'Mycenaean' culture, why they are considered different cultures?

 

[davef]

In my post i specifically wrote that there is a chance that he wrote those remains were in those places:



So i have never claimed the map is incorrect.
Although i did claim, and still claim, that the presence of some mycenean material doesnt mean that the myceneans lived there.

There are many places around the mediterranean where mycenean pottery can be found, but where there is a consensus that myceneans did not live.
As it is getting late i won't post it now. But for those interested, maybe i can post a map of mycenean finds throughout the mediterranean in the coming days.

And as many seem interested in this topic, i will also post some relevant papers on bronze age Epirus in the coming days.

(ps. i don't see how it is relevant if it was albanian members who wanted to discuss this topic. In my opinion it would have sufficed to write that "some members are dying to discuss this topic", as i don't see how my ethnicity is relevant in this regard.)

The map in Angela's post shows locations of Mycenaean remains in Epirus, not pottery or other stuff that they left behind

 

[Ownstyler]

I was more interested in the Neolothic part of the discussion, which I believe relates to the origins of Myceneans, but thanks for opening this anyway.

Checking every site against the text seems to require buying the paperback. Without doing that I fail to see how anyone could know it's incorrect.

Some other sources which came up in my search:

The Bronze Age in Epirus:
https://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/20...epirus-part-2/

Bronze Age site of Glykys Limin in Epirus:
https://books.google.com/books?id=r6...Epirus&f=false

Both the sources you provided explicityly state Epirus was not Mycenean.

On pages 210-212, especially the summary on page 212, the book says (I can't copy-paste it) Myceneans at best might have had a colony at Ephyra, close to Glykys Limin, which they sustained from their base further South in the Peloponnese and later abandoned. Mycenan-South Epirus relations consisted mainly of trade and this one temporary colony, which btw only proves the local population was not Mycenean - otherwise it would have just been a town, not a colony. North Epirus never had even this influence according to this book.

The second source, referring to Glykys Limin:

The site could have served as a trading colonial port for a regional centre of the Mycenaean world, probably locating to what today is the administrative district of Aitoloakarnania, where important Mycenaean settlements (note 10) have been excavated.

Aitoloakarnania is in the Peloponnese.

 

[Angela]

I was more interested in the Neolothic part of the discussion, which I believe relates to the origins of Myceneans, but thanks for opening this anyway.



Both the sources you provided explicityly state Epirus was not Mycenean.

On pages 210-212, especially the summary on page 212, the book says (I can't copy-paste it) Myceneans at best might have had a colony at Ephyra, close to Glykys Limin, which they sustained from their base further South in the Peloponnese and later abandoned. Mycenan-South Epirus relations consisted mainly of trade and this one temporary colony, which btw only proves the local population was not Mycenean - otherwise it would have just been a town, not a colony. North Epirus never had even this influence according to this book.

The second source, referring to Glykys Limin:



Aitoloakarnania is in the Peloponnese.

Now you've lost me. I read every word of this article, and nowhere does the author(s) opine in any way about which pots do or do not represent people.
https://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2014/10/06/bronze-age-epirus-part-2/


As to the article on Glykys Limin, it is the opinion of that author that the only area where there might have been actual colonization is Ephyra, at the head of Glykys Limin.

Also, see below: Aitoloadarnania is not in the Peloponnese, unless my eyes deceive me.
https://www.gtp.gr/TDirectoryDetails.asp?ID=66768

I also don't know where you got the impression that I ever expressed an opinion about whether there was migration of Mycenaeans to parts of Epirus. I don't care whether it happened or it didn't happen as it happens. The question was whether this area was part of the Mycenaean "world", or under its strong influence. I could very easily see that it could be argued that this is the case, particularly in the later Bronze Age when their influence spread further north.

The most important issue was that this was off topic in a thread about an ancient dna paper.

 

[Angela]

Now you've lost me. I read every word of this article, and nowhere does the author(s) opine in any way about which pots do or do not represent people.
https://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2014/10/06/bronze-age-epirus-part-2/


As to the article on Glykys Limin, it is the opinion of that author that the only area where there might have been actual colonization is Ephyra, at the head of Glykys Limin.

Also, see below: Aitoloadarnania is not in the Peloponnese, unless my eyes deceive me.
https://www.gtp.gr/TDirectoryDetails.asp?ID=66768

I also don't know where you got the impression that I ever expressed an opinion about whether there was migration of Mycenaeans to parts of Epirus. I don't care whether it happened or it didn't happen as it happens. The question was whether this area was part of the Mycenaean "world", or under its strong influence. I could very easily see that it could be argued that this is the case, especially in the later Bronze Age.

The most important issue was that this was off topic in a thread about an ancient dna paper.

Another paper which mentions the Mycenaean colony at Ephyra in Epirus.
http://users.uoi.gr/gramisar/prosopiko/papadopoulos/Mycanaean_citadels.pdf

We should also be aware that all post war archaeologists drank the kool-aid and believed that "pots are almost always pots", and not people. They said the same thing about the Indo-Europeans, kurgan trail or not.

 

[Angela]

Another paper which mentions the Mycenaean colony at Ephyra in Epirus.
http://users.uoi.gr/gramisar/prosopiko/papadopoulos/Mycanaean_citadels.pdf

We should also be aware that all post war archaeologists drank the kool-aid and believed that "pots are almost always pots", and not people. They said the same thing about the Indo-Europeans, kurgan trail or not.

Some more papers on the topic.

See the following on Glykys Limin and Kiperi
https://www.academia.edu/2393604/Glykys_Limin_and_the_Discontinuous_Mycenaean_Periphery

A very balanced view of the pots vs people aspect in this area of Epirus:
https://www.academia.edu/28918560/T...onour_of_Kostas_Zachos_and_Angelika_Douzougli

 

[Ownstyler]

Now you've lost me. I read every word of this article, and nowhere does the author(s) opine in any way about which pots do or do not represent people.
https://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2014/10/06/bronze-age-epirus-part-2/

That part is in the book, page 212. For a short summary, look at the sentence that starts with "To summarize...", here: https://books.google.com/books?id=r...bAhVozlkKHRueCF0Q6AEIVjAN#v=onepage&q&f=false

As to the article on Glykys Limin, it is the opinion of that author that the only area where there might have been actual colonization is Ephyra, at the head of Glykys Limin.

Exactly. That's what the book says too. But colonies are such because they are established in foreign lands, otherwise they are just normal ports. That's one clue.

Also, see below: Aitoloadarnania is not in the Peloponnese, unless my eyes deceive me.
https://www.gtp.gr/TDirectoryDetails.asp?ID=66768

True. I got confused with Pylos here because the author mentioned it might have been established either from Pylos or Aitoloadarnania. Still it's South of Epirus.

I also don't know where you got the impression that I ever expressed an opinion about whether there was migration of Mycenaeans to parts of Epirus. I don't care whether it happened or it didn't happen as it happens. The question was whether this area was part of the Mycenaean "world", or under its strong influence. I could very easily see that it could be argued that this is the case, particularly in the later Bronze Age when their influence spread further north.

I don't have a strong opinion on this either, I just followed your sources out of curiosity. But I was considering linguistic affiliations, since the Encyclopedia mentioned Greek speaking Mycenenans. I think genetic results show that a neolithic-BA continuity in Epirus, which the Encyclopedia states, is not compatible with the Neolithic-BA discontinuity in linguistic and genetic terms. So I'm not sure if we can say BA Epirotes were Greek speakers or not, but we can't say that they were Greek speakers (especially Myceneans) who were there from the Neolithic.

 

[Pygmalion]

Mycenaean pottery is almost completely absent from most of the regions in the Balkans except for Greece of course. In South Italy however Mycenaean pottery was found in several sites, and even made locally in some of them. Apulia yielded the highest number of Mycenaean pottery fragments West of Greece with the site of Rocca Vecchia. Sicily also yielded a good deal of Mycenaean pottery finds, the site of Thapsos near Siracusa was once thought to be a Mycenaean colony because at one point the inhabitants built some rectangular houses laid across streets similar to the Mycenaean ones and even a few small tholos tombs. However now most archaeologists view it as a native site with foreign influences because most of the pottery was still local and it was built over a previous indigenous village. Calabria has also yielded Mycenaean pottery from many different sites, the most important one being Punta Zambrone where the pottery was also made locally. Sardinia despite being so far away from Greece compared to the Western Balkans has yielded way more Mycenaean pottery finds, all from native settlements and in at least three sites the pottery was also made locally. The island has also yielded by far the highest number of Cypriot oxhide ingots among all Mediterranean regions which however is the proof of intense contact with Cyprus rather than with Greece in this case. So to sum this up bronze age Greeks and Cretans traded more intensely with South Italy, Sicily and Sardinia than with the regions of the Western Balkans, and for neither of those region Mycenaean colonization is suggested, but only trade. Moreover, as Reinhard Jung has recently demonstrated, the Mycenaeans adopted Naue II type swords from Italy rather than from the Balkans since their swords were derived from the Cetona prototype. Even if we think of the native finds in the Eastern Mediterranean, there are no finds of Balkan pottery in the Levant, Cyprus or Crete while there are South Italian finds in those regions. Starting from Crete where Sub Apenninic pottery was found at Chidonia where it was made locally and it was found in other sites too, while Nuragic pottery was found at Kommos in remarkable quantity, and in Cyprus at Pyla Kokkinokremos where it was imported and locally made so a convincing proof of material presence. Sub Apenninic pottery was found in Cyprus too at Maa Paleokastro, and in the Levant at Tell Arqa and in Tell Kazel where several dozen fragments were found and it's been established that they were made locally, along with Mycenaean pottery. And Thapsos style pottery was found in a Tomb in Beirut.

 

[Ernekar]

Since you believe that ancient cultures are constructed what you write doesn't make any sense.

Also, are you interested in the geographical extent of a 'fashion'?

If 'tholos tombs' are the defining characteristic of 'Minoan' & 'Mycenaean' culture, why they are considered different cultures?

Its not that i "believe" cultures are constructed, i KNOW cultures are constructed. Because we know the names of the specific archaeologists who constructed the name 'Mycenean' and 'Minoan' for example. But it is easier for me to address people here by mentioning which material cultures i am talking about.

But that does NOT mean that SOME of the cultures we construct, cant actually fit with a people which lived at that time.
In many cases i don't think the material cultures we define correspond to a specific people. But in some cases they can be very close.

And you ask me why they are considered different(Mycs. and mins.). They are considered different by a lot of archaeologists, but not by all. For example colin Renfrew calls them the Minoan-Mycenean civilization. He argues that they were more or less the same people. The names are just stuck from back when the terms mycenean and minoan were first constructed.

And to be honest the mycenean-minoans are one of those cases where i actually think that the material culture actually fits with a people. Not only because of the tholos tombs being both at crete and in mainland greece, but that Linear B is found both in Crete and in mainland greece.
That does not mean that the whole of crete and peloponnes were of this culture. There could easily have been other peoples living in the area too. But to me it seems that this seemingly greekspeaking class which buried themselves in tholos, made fortresses out of meter-high cyclopic rocks and wrote down economic stuff, were actually the elites of this time in crete and peloponnes. So no i am not interested in the geographic extent of a 'fashion'. I am interested in the geographic extent of the elite-class of peloponnes and crete which i believe could have been early greekspeakers.

 

[Ernekar]

The map in Angela's post shows locations of Mycenaean remains in Epirus, not pottery or other stuff that they left behind

No. All of those dots can't really be mycenean human remains as you suggest. As there are not enough tholoi up there.
Of course they could be, but how will you prove it without any of the right graves being in the area?

And btw, arhcaeological remains is a broad word which we use for talking about anything from small tools to huge monuments. So it can be a pottery sherd, or it can be a temple. Both are archaeological remains. So do not confuse the word with human remains. It is not the same thing.

 

[Ernekar]

Since you believe that ancient cultures are constructed what you write doesn't make any sense.

Also, are you interested in the geographical extent of a 'fashion'?

If 'tholos tombs' are the defining characteristic of 'Minoan' & 'Mycenaean' culture, why they are considered different cultures?

And sometimes i don't know if you ask these questions because you are genuinely interested, or if you are trying to trap me with questions that you think i can't answer?
Which one is it?
Because i can always sense some hostile undertones in your posts towards me. And if you are only doing this out of hostility, then i really don't see why i should spend my time giving you any answers in the future.

Maybe i am wrong about you being hostile. And if that is the case, then at least try to be more polite when you ask me questions, so i won't get the impression of hostility.

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

And sometimes i don't know if you ask these questions because you are genuinely interested, or if you are trying to trap me with questions that you think i can't answer?
Which one is it?
Because i can always sense some hostile undertones in your posts. And if you are only doing this out of hostility, then i really don't see why i should spend my time giving you any answers in the future.

Maybe i am wrong about you being hostile. And if that is the case, then at least try to be more polite when you ask me questions, so i won't get the impression of hostility.

I don't understand your motives. You commented in a thread where t r o l l s like Laberia and DuPidh were commenting.

Even that view of yours, that the 'elite-class of peloponnes and crete [...] were the early greekspeakers' can be politically motivated.

Either way, even if Epirus wasn't part of the 'Minoan-Mycenaean civilization' 'construct', that doesn't mean that Albanians can claim it as theirs. Even if your motives are different, that is not true about others who comment here.

 

[Ernekar]

I don't understand your motives. You commented in a thread where t r o l l s like Laberia and DuPidh were commenting.

Even that view of yours, that the 'elite-class of peloponnes and crete [...] were the early greekspeakers' can be politically motivated.

Either way, even if Epirus wasn't part of the 'Minoan-Mycenaean civilization' 'construct', that doesn't mean that Albanians can claim it as theirs. Even if your motives are different, that is not true about others who comment here.

Just because i commented in a thread where they posted, doesnt mean that i am here for the same reasons.

The most important reason why i am here(and on other forums) is to get access to discussions and new perspectives about genetics.
That is mainly because there are not really other places to get access to perspectives on genetics besides on the internet(as it is a new science).
Exactly because it is a young science, there are not really that many archaeologists who knows about it yet, and therefore i can't discuss genetics or get new insights by talking with my colleagues. So, i have to find those input somewhere else. Sometimes i post if i see someone posting something which is way off, and not backed by archaeological data. Other times i just post because i get carried away by subjects i find interesting.

I don't know why you bring the albanians up here. Do you really think i am writing this with the hope that modern albania can claim land from modern greece based on some people who lived there over 3000 years ago?
Politically it would not make sense for me. Because even if those bronze age epirotes resembled Illyrians more than they resembled early greeks(which i don't know if they did, as we dont have genetic papers on them), why would that matter 3000 years later. Many things have happened since then, people have migrated many times up and down those coasts since the bronze age. For example greeks have colonized Illyrian lands later on in the archaic period and so on. Later on in the middle ages, gheg albanians have migrated to greece in great numbers. People have migrated so much in those areas and mixed so much with each other, that it does not make sense to claim affinity between a modern population and a population which lived in a extremely dynamic area like epirus in the bronze age.

Politically i am what they call a realist, i have a machiavelian world view. So i know that greeks and albanians don't have any power to say which areas belong to them or which dont. And i am very well aware that the great powers decide those things based on their own interests.
So the only way to change things for an albanian or a greek, is to become a lobbyist in america or somewhere in the benelux, and persuade the world leaders that your interest is in their interest as well.
In other words, if i was interested in claiming greek lands, i had not taken the education of classical archaeology, but then i would have taken a political science education. I have taken the path of classical archaeology because i am interested in greek, roman and illyrian arhcaeology and art.

So in fact you are just assuming that i have bad intentions based on my ethnicity, and then act hostile towards me based on that assumption.

And i do agree that we have both greeks and albanians who are borderline t-rolls and spammers on these forums. But that should not keep us from having civilized discussions on these matters, and addressing each other with respect.

 

[DuPidh]

Mycenaean pottery is almost completely absent from most of the regions in the Balkans except for Greece of course. In South Italy however Mycenaean pottery was found in several sites, and even made locally in some of them. Apulia yielded the highest number of Mycenaean pottery fragments West of Greece with the site of Rocca Vecchia. Sicily also yielded a good deal of Mycenaean pottery finds, the site of Thapsos near Siracusa was once thought to be a Mycenaean colony because at one point the inhabitants built some rectangular houses laid across streets similar to the Mycenaean ones and even a few small tholos tombs. However now most archaeologists view it as a native site with foreign influences because most of the pottery was still local and it was built over a previous indigenous village. Calabria has also yielded Mycenaean pottery from many different sites, the most important one being Punta Zambrone where the pottery was also made locally. Sardinia despite being so far away from Greece compared to the Western Balkans has yielded way more Mycenaean pottery finds, all from native settlements and in at least three sites the pottery was also made locally. The island has also yielded by far the highest number of Cypriot oxhide ingots among all Mediterranean regions which however is the proof of intense contact with Cyprus rather than with Greece in this case. So to sum this up bronze age Greeks and Cretans traded more intensely with South Italy, Sicily and Sardinia than with the regions of the Western Balkans, and for neither of those region Mycenaean colonization is suggested, but only trade. Moreover, as Reinhard Jung has recently demonstrated, the Mycenaeans adopted Naue II type swords from Italy rather than from the Balkans since their swords were derived from the Cetona prototype. Even if we think of the native finds in the Eastern Mediterranean, there are no finds of Balkan pottery in the Levant, Cyprus or Crete while there are South Italian finds in those regions. Starting from Crete where Sub Apenninic pottery was found at Chidonia where it was made locally and it was found in other sites too, while Nuragic pottery was found at Kommos in remarkable quantity, and in Cyprus at Pyla Kokkinokremos where it was imported and locally made so a convincing proof of material presence. Sub Apenninic pottery was found in Cyprus too at Maa Paleokastro, and in the Levant at Tell Arqa and in Tell Kazel where several dozen fragments were found and it's been established that they were made locally, along with Mycenaean pottery. And Thapsos style pottery was found in a Tomb in Beirut.

wrong! Wrong!wrong! Mycenaean pottery is all over Albanian cites

 

[Angela]

Ownstyler;544760]That part is in the book, page 212. For a short summary, look at the sentence that starts with "To summarize...", here: https://books.google.com/books?id=r...bAhVozlkKHRueCF0Q6AEIVjAN#v=onepage&q&f=false

I know, Ownstyler, I produced the sources, so obviously I read them, but you had said all of my sources were saying that, and they weren't.

Exactly. That's what the book says too. But colonies are such because they are established in foreign lands, otherwise they are just normal ports. That's one clue.

I'm getting confused. I don't know who is trying to prove what! It seems from what I've read so far that the consensus is that Epirus was very much part of the periphery of the Mycenaean world, a place where the Mycenaeans exerted increasing influence as time went on because they wanted its raw materials, but which continued with its own traditions. The only actual "colony" may have been Glykys Limin. This appears to be a case of a dominant, more southerly culture gradually extending its reach northwards, and, if, you read all of the material, in other directions as well, into Anatolia, for example.

True. I got confused with Pylos here because the author mentioned it might have been established either from Pylos or Aitoloadarnania. Still it's South of Epirus.

Not according to the authors. They clearly and always locate Glykys Limin in Epirus.

I don't have a strong opinion on this either, I just followed your sources out of curiosity. But I was considering linguistic affiliations, since the Encyclopedia mentioned Greek speaking Mycenenans. I think genetic results show that a neolithic-BA continuity in Epirus, which the Encyclopedia states, is not compatible with the Neolithic-BA discontinuity in linguistic and genetic terms. So I'm not sure if we can say BA Epirotes were Greek speakers or not, but we can't say that they were Greek speakers (especially Myceneans) who were there from the Neolithic.

As I said, it seems to me, and it is explicitly stated in some of these sources that the Mycenaeans were an intrusive element in Epirus.

 

[Pygmalion]

post

There's some Mycenaean pottery in South Albania and that's pretty much it

 

[LAB]

Since some Albanian members are dying to discuss this topic, I am providing them with a dedicated thread.



"Angela:
I linked the article for one purpose and one purpose only, i.e. for the fact that The Encyclopedia Britannica endorsed that Epirus was part of the peripheral Mycenaean world and that this has been shown through multiple sites having material evidence of Mycenaean links.


"Epirus has been occupied since at least Neolithic times by seafarers along the coast and by hunters and shepherds in the interior who brought with them the Greek language.^[1]These people buried their leaders in large tumulicontaining shaft graves, similar to the Mycenaean tombs, indicating an ancestral link between Epirus and the Mycenaean civilization.^[1] A number of Mycenaean remains have been found in Epirus,^[9] especially at the most important ancient religious sites in the region, the Necromanteion (Oracle of the Dead) on the Acheron river, and the Oracle of Zeus at Dodona.^[1]"

The number 1 refers to the Encyclopedia.

This is the consensus: that's why it wound up in an encyclopedia. Had the authors of the article wished to cite books and papers, it would have been an easy thing to do.

There's no need to re-invent the wheel here."



This is the poster Ernekar's response:
"

Originally Posted by Johane Derite
The wikipedia link says the map is created by Megiastis and cites David Tandy as a source. I'm in the process of trying to find a pdf to see if the map accurately represents what his book says.




There is a chance that this David Tandy does say that there are Mycenean remains(by remains they probably mean pottery) at those places(can't find the pdf either).
But then again, i have seen Mycenean pottery even at italian sites which were 100% surely inhabited by locals, and not by myceneans. So mycenean pottery does not indicate mycenean presence, or else great areas of the mediterranean could be classified as mycenean.
And no scholars define settlements as mycenean based only on some small finds of pottery and such. They gotta have the tholos tombs to be able to be properly defined as mycenean, as the tholos is one of the things which the constuct 'Mycenean' has been based on.
If we would go by the pottery=presence method(which i am an opponent of), then half of italy could be defined as illyrian in the iron age(because of presence of illyrian type swords practically everywhere), but those swords are probably just indications of trade across the adriatic.

In the same way, the occurences of mycenean 'remains'/pottery(if the map is actually true), would just be sign of trade or piracy with/by the surrounding groups. And it would be pretty much expected that some mycenean pottery show up in epirus, as its only a few hundred km away from the mycenean core area(peloponnes).

So in my opinion it is very misleading to post such a map while implying some major mycenean presence in epirus, because that can simply not be backed by any of the data we have available."

This is the link to David Tandy's compendium.

https://books.google.com/books?id=8P...ents+in+Epirus

The map which it is claimed is based on his work:

Checking every site against the text seems to require buying the paperback. Without doing that I fail to see how anyone could know it's incorrect.

Some other sources which came up in my search:

The Bronze Age in Epirus:
https://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/20...epirus-part-2/

Bronze Age site of Glykys Limin in Epirus:
https://books.google.com/books?id=r6...Epirus&f=false

We're not dying to discuss it to be honest, we know the truth and the truth always wins in the end.
Let's see if we could explain some toponyms with the transition of letters
* dh /d to Greek * th

Reference >> http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/view/2284/2264



Etymologies from Babiniotis lexicon >> http://5dim-tavrou.att.sch.gr/lexiko_bambinioti.pdf


1- Thesprotia ( Θέσπρωτια . Gr )
Θεσπρωτία (η) περιοχή και νοµός τής Ηπείρου µε πρωτεύουσα την
Ηγουµενίτσα. — Θεσπρωτός (ο), Θεσπρωτή (η), θεσπρωτικός, -ή, -ό.
[ΕΤΥΜ. αρχ., αγν. ετύµου]. = [ Unknown etymology ]



2- Thessalia ( Θεσσαλια . Gr )
Θεσσαλία (η) γεωγραφικό διαµέρισµα στο κεντρικό τµήµα τής ηπειρωτικής
Ελλάδας µεταξύ τής Μακεδονίας, τής Ηπείρου, τής Στερεάς Ελλάδας και τού
Αιγαίου Πελάγους, που περιλαµβάνει τους νοµούς Καρδίτσας, Λάρισας,
Μαγνησίας και Τρικάλων. — Θεσσαλός (ο) [αρχ.], Θεσσαλή (η), θεσσαλικός,
-ή, -ό [αρχ.] . [ΕΤΥΜ. αρχ. < Θεσσαλός | Θετταλός | Πετθαλός, αγν. ετύµου,
προελ-λην. λ.]. = [ Unknown etymology , Pre-Hellenic ]



3- Emathia ( Ημαθια . Gr )
Ηµαθία (η) περιοχή και νοµός τής Κ. Μακεδονίας µε
πρωτεύουσα τη Βέροια.
[ΕΤΥΜ. αρχ. < άµαθος «άµµος», πβ. αρχ. ψάµαθος «η άµµος τής θαλάσσιας
παραλίας», βλ. κ. άµµος]. = [ αμμος = ''sand'' / αμμος > ημαθια ? -not convincing-]



Apart from the toponyms there is the word 'Θεμελιο' = foundation [something that is related with the ground and the soil ]

[ΕΤΥΜ. αρχ. < θεµο- (που απαντά σε σύνθετα ανθρωπωνύµια, καθώς και στηµτγν. «γλώσσα» θεµός) < *dhe-mo-, παράγ. τού ρ. τί-θη-µι (πβ. απρφ. τι-θέ-ναι). Βλ. κ. θέτω, τίθεµαι].

Babiniotis is by 50% right on this etymology

he switched *th with *dh and he found the Albanian word that explains not only this word but also the above toponyms.

And that is 'DHE' =[ earth,soil,ground,land ] So everything makes sense now

Θε-μελιο = *dhe + mel, *mbjell = [ earth + plant,sow ] > ''To plant something in the ground''

Hence

Θε-σπρωτια > *Dhe - sprotia = [ land + ? ]

Θε-σσαλια > *Dhe - σσαλια = [ land + ? ]
( a bit help from any linguists with the 2nd part of these words would be much appreciated )

Ημαθια > E Madhia

So the Encyclopedia Britannica is right but the etymologies are not Pre-Hellenic but Pre-Byzantine, some people need to understand that Byzantine language exists.. and it was spread in Greece quite recently..

Edit by moderator: Insulting video to Greeks has been removed and an infraction issued. By all means continue, LAB. :grin:

That's it? That's all you've got in response to all the archaeology? I'd go home with my marbles before you lose them all if I were you.

 

[LAB]

So we just found out that the opinion of the woman below is insulting modern Greeks, i just got an infraction for posting a video of Eleni Arveler, one of the greatest Greeks of all time. Or maybe she isn't ? Someone please to explain me why Eleni Arveler insults modern Greeks?

Helene Ahrweiler, née Glykatzi (born 29 August 1926) (Greek: Ελένη Γλύκατζη-Αρβελέρ; French: Hélène Ahrweiler, pronounced [aʁvɛlɛʁ]) is an eminent Greek university professor and Byzantinologist. She is also a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador for Greece. In the 2008 show Great Greeks, she was named in the 100 greatest Greeks of all time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helene_Ahrweiler