Illyria

[how yes no 2]

They did find J in the plains of Veneto, where it was found that 55000 Venetians that migrated to crete in the 13th century and 40000 returned between 1602 and 1670.

there is no provable link between Adriatic Veneti and people who lived in town of Veneto at times when medieval Venetian republic was created.... there is a gap of like thousand years...... only link is name of Adriatic Veneti preserved in name of town of Veneto that was later centar of republic that was named Venetian republic after it....

BTW, they also found T in the alp of the veneto due to the Cimbri who originated from Jutland Denmark.

interesting, but how on earth can anyone guess haplogroup of Cimbri? no remains, no population is confirmed to origin from them... and T is very exotic haplogroup for Europe...

Also, the Carni seem to be a mix of Celtic and Venetic, when originally scholars said they where Illyrian. IIRC Carniola region was named after the carni

if you look at Slovenes...their name in early medieval period was Carantanians, which may be same tribal name as Carni...
Slovene people are mix of R1a, I2a2 and R1b...

Lastly...Roberto Salinas Price wrote in 1995, that the Trojan war was based in Dalmatia and the trojans where illyrians and their neighbors where the Dardanians . Scholars have recently said while Mr. Price is correct that TROY was not where we are told it was, they have doubts that it was in Dalmatia.

Roberto Salinas Price is philologist and amateur archeologist
he argues that ancestors of modern Greeks came to region much after Trojan war and have adopted epic songs.... he also believes that Iliad was originally written in proto-Slavic language.... hm, regarding that I need to notice that word Homer may be corruption of Gomer... though, Gomer are Cimmerians... and I2a2 probably...

anyway, from his website

It is at the time of the Trojan War (or better yet, at the time of the Fall of Troy, c. 1,200 BC) that the term "Illyrioi" comes into historical being as a collective name for a number of independent albeit closely related tribes of a common Slavic stock.

http://www.homer.com.mx/Time_Line/Trojan_Diaspora.html
http://www.homer.com.mx/index.html

I myself believe that Slavic people origin from Venetic people, and that Illyrians were something else...
but who knows?

e.g Iapetoc thinks proto-Slavic were Thracians
but on his topic about ancient Thracians, I show that Slavic languages are very related to what is thought to be few preserved Illyrian words, while not related at all to Thracian...

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=367548#post367548

actually, there is lot of confusion between Greek notion of Illyria and Roman province of Illyricum...
Greek notion of Illyria was more or less Albania of today plus parts of Montenegro... and Roman provice of Illyricum is more or less ex-Yugoslavia..... so, I think that good match of the few preserved "Illyrian" words with Slavic and no match with Albanian is in fact due to words probably being from Roman province of Illyricum but not from real Illyria.... Roman empire made same confusion everywhere - Macedonia was shifted north, Raetia was shifted east to include Vindelici.. perhaps that was special tactic to brake national identities....

e.g. if we imagine that USA took over Europe and make USA province of Germany to be Bohemia and north France, province of Poland to be east Germany...province of Hungary to be Slovakia, province of Slovakia to be Czech republic, province of Czech people to be Bavaria....

there are three factors:
1) own tribal name used for foreign people, results in lack of willingness to identify with that tribal name
2) living in a land that is not named after them also has a factor of feeling foreigner, but belonging to Roman empire makes them not foreigners...
3) this is also part of 'divide et impera' strategy...because if for instance people A know that land A is their neighbor, after awhile they will start to believe that that country was originally theirs and that it belongs to them....

if people are forced to use those wrong names for longer period, they will just lose national identity much easier than if they kept tribal names... I guess that is how Roman empire managed to be so successful melting pot in which many national identities were lost...

province of Illyricum was at least partly settled by Venetic people, and we know that Jordanes in 6th century speaks of Slavic people as part of Venethi race....
I think Venethic people were I2a2 with some R1a, Illyrian and Dardanian (and perhaps Thracian) were E-V13 with some R1b and J2

 

[Aconform]

@how yes no

Interesting reading… wile reading and getting familiar with the genetics I stumbled on this. And thought it related to some of points.

“The Greek branch
Little is known about the arrival of Proto-Greek speakers from the steppes. The Mycenaean culture commenced circa 1650 BCE and is clearly an imported steppe culture. The close relationship between Mycenaean and Proto-Indo-Iranian languages suggest that they split fairly late, some time between 2500 and 2000 BCE. Archeologically, Mycenaean chariots, spearheads, daggers and other bronze objects show striking similarities with the Seima-Turbino culture (c. 1900-1600 BCE) of the northern Russian forest-steppes, known for the great mobility of its nomadic warriors (Seima-Turbino sites were found as far away as Mongolia). It is therefore likely that the Mycenaean descended from Russia to Greece between 1900 and 1650 BCE, where they intermingled with the locals to create a new unique Greek culture.”

From http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml

It’s in relation to your:

“Roberto Salinas Price is philologist and amateur archeologist
he argues that ancestors of modern Greeks came to region much after Trojan war and have adopted epic songs.... he also believes that Iliad was originally written in proto-Slavic language.... hm, regarding that I need to notice that word Homer may be corruption of Gomer... though, Gomer are Cimmerians... and I2a2 probably...”

I believe that the area of Illyrian has been a cultural and genetic cross road. I don’t believe that the Illyrian tribes were homogenous in culture or genes.

 

[zanipolo]

there is no provable link between Adriatic Veneti and people who lived in town of Veneto at times when medieval Venetian republic was created.... there is a gap of like thousand years...... only link is name of Adriatic Veneti preserved in name of town of Veneto that was later centar of republic that was named Venetian republic after it....

If as you say there is no link between the venetic and the middle ages Veneti , because there is a gap, then why do you quote Jordanes who lived around 600AD and was 700 years after the Venetics became extinct ?
This is very illogical and confusing.

Its well known that the Venetic lived in the Adriatic lands from around 1100BC to around 100BC. Polybius mentioned that the venetic where nearly all latinized by 120BC.
Modern historians/archaeologists who began excavating in the area from the 1990s has found only about 500 written script from 700BC to 100BC. In 2009 they dismissed Mr. Boj linguistic theory from the 1990.
Current theory from November 2010, is that Venetic was its own language.

interesting, but how on earth can anyone guess haplogroup of Cimbri? no remains, no population is confirmed to origin from them... and T is very exotic haplogroup for Europe...

Myres and Cruciani studies, found that in the Veneto they where U152 out of R1b1b2 branch (equal to 58% of their R1b1b2). From other studies, they estimate North Italy's R1b1b2 at exactly 50%. This results in North Italy having 29% U152 out of their total y-dna.
North Italy's neighbors to the north, west, and south have the 2nd highest frequencies of U152 in Europe, but they're all much lower than North Italy's.

Veneto's eastern neighbor, Slovenia, has 5% U152

Explain this from August 2010 studies.


BTW Austria has U106



i

f you look at Slovenes...their name in early medieval period was Carantanians, which may be same tribal name as Carni...
Slovene people are mix of R1a, I2a2 and R1b...

You do realise that when people migrate, there vocabuary is not complete and they accept the existing peoples words. CARNIOLA was named after the carni tribe , a mix of celtic and venetic peoples.

people also have a habit of changing place names, eg, Dubrovnic was Ragusa for over 1000 years.

Roberto Salinas Price is philologist and amateur archeologist
he argues that ancestors of modern Greeks came to region much after Trojan war and have adopted epic songs.... he also believes that Iliad was originally written in proto-Slavic language.... hm, regarding that I need to notice that word Homer may be corruption of Gomer... though, Gomer are Cimmerians... and I2a2 probably...

To finalise this , mr. Crowe recently wrote that Troy was pergamun in his recently written book, Troy: The great Deception

I myself believe that Slavic people origin from Venetic people, and that Illyrians were something else...
but who knows?

You mispelt again, its Venetic for adriatic tribe
Venedic for baltic tribe west of the Oder river
And the veneti in brittany and NW ireland

e.g Iapetoc thinks proto-Slavic were Thracians
but on his topic about ancient Thracians, I show that Slavic languages are very related to what is thought to be few preserved Illyrian words, while not related at all to Thracian...

Is this BC or AD theory?

actually, there is lot of confusion between Greek notion of Illyria and Roman province of Illyricum...
Greek notion of Illyria was more or less Albania of today plus parts of Montenegro... and Roman provice of Illyricum is more or less ex-Yugoslavia..... so, I think that good match of the few preserved "Illyrian" words with Slavic and no match with Albanian is in fact due to words probably being from Roman province of Illyricum but not from real Illyria.... Roman empire made same confusion everywhere - Macedonia was shifted north, Raetia was shifted east to include Vindelici.. perhaps that was special tactic to brake national identities..

You are again quoting the period at the end of the Roman Empire. Even in the great illyrian revolt, from 6 to 9 AD the Roman knew of no slavs south of the Danube. Illyricum was huge, supplied troops for the spanish Frontier and at the end, some illyrian families ended up Emperors of Rome...

province of Illyricum was at least partly settled by Venetic people, and we know that Jordanes in 6th century speaks of Slavic people as part of Venethi race....
I think Venethic people were I2a2 with some R1a, Illyrian and Dardanian (and perhaps Thracian) were E-V13 with some R1b and J2

Either as I say the adriatic Venetics became fully extinct by 100BC , then how you got the DNA markings seems very very wrong and incorrect , OR the explanation is that the "modern " veneti which founded Venice in 400AD and are the Veneti present in Italy now and Have R1b with U152 markings as there majority DNA, I find your reasoning very Illogical.

And I again state, where do you get these maps that show istria having Venetic language and Istria having illyrian language. Which is correct...they are your maps that you placed in this forum.

 

[how yes no 2]

If as you say there is no link between the venetic and the middle ages Veneti , because there is a gap, then why do you quote Jordanes who lived around 600AD and was 700 years after the Venetics became extinct ?This is very illogical and confusing.

Its well known that the Venetic lived in the Adriatic lands from around 1100BC to around 100BC. Polybius mentioned that the venetic where nearly all latinized by 120BC.

Jordanes was official historian of Roman empire...he had access to sources of knowledge that are not available now... he is also a person of Gothic origin and Goths did live in close neigborhood of these people for long time...

If you discard his claims that early Slavic people are from populous race of Veneti, we can as well discard any claim ever made by any historian about people living in his lifetime ....

besides I never calimed that Veneti in 6th century AD from whom Slavic people origin and Adriatic Veneti from year 100 BC spoke same language... it is about same race... and that race is I2a people in my opinion....

I base this on many clues e.g. on fact that I2a* we find exactly and only in areas of Celtic Veneti and of Adriatic Veneti...

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?section=ymap

note that this is about distant common origin, not necesserilly about recent one...idea is that the tribal name is in case of Veneti carried with genetics flow while languages were changing through history....

Modern historians/archaeologists who began excavating in the area from the 1990s has found only about 500 written script from 700BC to 100BC. In 2009 they dismissed Mr. Boj linguistic theory from the 1990.
Current theory from November 2010, is that Venetic was its own language.

again, genetics and languages have different timeline...
what is in development of languages one life ago maps to what was in genetics yesterday....

Myres and Cruciani studies, found that in the Veneto they where U152 out of R1b1b2 branch (equal to 58% of their R1b1b2). From other studies, they estimate North Italy's R1b1b2 at exactly 50%. This results in North Italy having 29% U152 out of their total y-dna.
North Italy's neighbors to the north, west, and south have the 2nd highest frequencies of U152 in Europe, but they're all much lower than North Italy's.

Veneto's eastern neighbor, Slovenia, has 5% U152

Explain this from August 2010 studies.

well, this doesnot look at all like Veneti spread....
in Italy more likely cause are Etruscans and from them derived Raetians who spread/migrated to Swiss from north Italy ... Veneti were more to the east...

I explain the way I see origin of U152 in thread
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26361

You do realise that when people migrate, there vocabuary is not complete and they accept the existing peoples words. CARNIOLA was named after the carni tribe , a mix of celtic and venetic peoples.

so?
those people might have undergone language shift to Slavic... but they can still be core of genetics of Slovene or Caranthanians....

languages play no major role in genetic origin.... they are changed by genetic tribes like socks by humans...

well, just 2500 years ago Latin was spoken only in small village called Rome, now you have derived languages spoken in Romania, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, latin America... do you claim that all those people genetically origin from a village of Rome from 2500 years ago? it is ridiculous to use languages as argument to deny genetic relation...

You mispelt again, its Venetic for adriatic tribe
Venedic for baltic tribe west of the Oder river
And the veneti in brittany and NW ireland
...
Is this BC or AD theory?

BC theory...

about common origin of people sharing same tribal name
Venethi, Venedi, Veneti, Wends (arhaic Germanic for all for Slavic people, now used for Sorbs mostly) , Venäläiset (name of Russians in Finish)..is clearly all the same tribal name...

question is whether there is a shared genetic origin that spread that name, and what Y-DNA haplogroup would it be? I think it is I2a...

I do not infer language continuity between Adriatic Veneti and later Veneti tribes, but I also don't exclude language continuity... when looking at genetic origin, languages can be misleading clue...
in case of Adriatic Veneti we do not really know too much about the language.... I can also imagine a scenario in which Veneti were the tribe that spread PIE language in Europe and that different branches of IE languages are due to mix of PIE carried by Veneti with local languages... I wonder about this as the tribal name is related to Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Sarmatian peoples...
in haplogroups this spread across different IE languages and cultures is noticeable with different branches of I2a haplogroup....

You are again quoting the period at the end of the Roman Empire. Even in the great illyrian revolt, from 6 to 9 AD the Roman knew of no slavs south of the Danube. Illyricum was huge, supplied troops for the spanish Frontier and at the end, some illyrian families ended up Emperors of Rome...

Slavic name only appears in 5th century...
which doesnot mean that the same people didnot have different tribal names before... Vistula Veneti fit their later position and claims of Jordanes...

Either as I say the adriatic Venetics became fully extinct by 100BC , then how you got the DNA markings seems very very wrong and incorrect , OR the explanation is that the "modern " veneti which founded Venice in 400AD and are the Veneti present in Italy now and Have R1b with U152 markings as there majority DNA, I find your reasoning very Illogical.

again, U152 clearly doesnot origin from Veneti..
look at the map...

And I again state, where do you get these maps that show istria having Venetic language and Istria having illyrian language. Which is correct...they are your maps that you placed in this forum.

don't shoot the messanger...

I am lazy to search for maps in my posts, but both maps are probably from wikipedia, as I often use maps from there....

I do not care who Histri were...
but their origin is disputed...
there are clues that neigbouring Liburnians were Venetic people...
whole Illyricum also had lot of Pannonian tribes...
real Illyrians one shoul;d search in Greek notion of Illyria (Albania plus parts of Montenegro), not in Roman province of Illyricum...

 

[zanipolo]

Facts are
1. Original people in the Veneto are the Eugenai - G2a
they where pushed into the alps by the venetic around 1200BC

2. One of the "seven daughters of eve" the K was centred in the Veneto .

3. Historical evidence suggests that following the great Trojan wars in the early centuries B.C.E, the Paphlagonians emigrated from modern-day northern Turkey (near modern Sinope), along the Adriatic and eventually into the Veneto. According to the Paphlagonia Theory, these peoples are the ancestors of modern-day Venetians.
The historical evidence that supports the Paphlagonia Theory is ancient. Both Livy and Homer provide literary references that support the Paphlagonia migration. As an ancient Roman historian, Livy kept historical records for much of Italy during the time of Augustus. According to Livy, a population called the Enetae emigrated from their homeland, in Paphlagonia, following the death of their King Pylaemenes in a revolution during the Trojan wars47. The Enetians, explained Livy, migrated westward along the Adriatic coast and eventually settled in the region that constitutes modern-day Veneto.

4. the Lusatia Theory is relatively new. It was first pioneered by Slovene author Jozko Savli. Through his research in the mid 1980s, Savli attempted to prove that Slovenes were not descendants of the Slavs, but in fact descendants of the Veneti. Savli’s search came to be known as the Venetic-Theory. His research was radical, as it evolved from just explaining the ancestors of Slovenes to explaining the ancestors of all of Europe. Savli explains that most current-day European populations are descendants of the Veneti, a central European population that emigrated from Lusatia across Europe to places such as Brittany, Austria, and Italy, among others. He attempts to associate each of the three distinct ethnic Veneti groups; the Adriatic Veneti, Vistula (Baltic) Veneti, and the Veneti of Gaul.
In short, Savli suggested that the Veneti were originally an ethic population located in the regions where modern-day Poland, Germany, and the Czech Republic intersect.



5. In 2009, historian Stjepan Pantelic, argues that Slovenes were not descendants of the Slavs. His research stemmed from Savli’s, in areas where Pantelic felt Savli’s theory was underdeveloped. Pantelic rejects the Paphlagonia Theory and instead claims that the Veneti came, not from eastern, but western Europe. According to Pantelic, “the Eastern Slavs are the most recent Slavs and there is no continuous record linking them to the Veneti mentioned at Troy. Following Pantelic’s logic, the ancient Veneti only could have come from the basin of the Danube River. Pantelic suggests that the Veneti where indigenous people, not of Paphlagonia, but from Carinthia in Southern Austria.


6. Many academics reject Savli’s theory, especially Roland Steinarcher, an Austrian historian. Steinarch claims that the Adriatic Veneti, Vistual Veneti, and Veneti of Gaul, are three distinct, unrelated populations”.


7. According to Strabo, an ancient Greek historian, modern-day Venetians are descendents not from Paphlagonia, nor Lusatia, but in fact, Brittany. Like Steinarcher, Strabo claimed that the Enetae/Veneti translation was incorrect and that the Eneti did not establish the nation of Veneti, as Livy claimed. Instead, Strabo suggest that the Veneti of Gaul, an ancient population of northeast France (modern-day Brittany) migrated to the Veneto and are the ancestors of modern-day Venetians. The Veneti from brittany arrived in the adriatic around 1000 B.C.E and where joined by the remaining Veneti "according to Caesar's Historian" after Caesar enslaved the Veneti of Gaul after his Gallic war.

8. In late 2010 , Dna conclusively had Veneti of the adriatic as R1b U-152

It seems to me you are solely basing your Venetic theory on Savli's line of which nearly all academics have dismissed.
You dismiss Homer and Livy, Polybius, Strabo, Pantelic, Wilkes, Alfoldy and Steinarcher to name a few and yet you champion Jordanes, a goth born in Pannonia who only mentions the slavs because he was one of the first to see them cross the Danube in 600 AD

What should be proved with tests was what was the Dna of the Paphlagonians and the brittany Veneti to dismiss claims from these areas.

To conclude , the 400 samples of the veneti are again being analysed for a second opinion in Barcelona. But then what will we have , modern veneti dna or ancient Venetic dna?

BTW i did find this site, might be of some value?
http://indo-european-migrations.scienceontheweb.net/map_of_indo_european_migrations.html

 

[how yes no 2]

Facts are

Facts?
what do you know about facts?

1. Original people in the Veneto are the Eugenai - G2a
they where pushed into the alps by the venetic around 1200BC

where does this data come from? some forum?
quote any scientific paper that claims such a thing....

2. One of the "seven daughters of eve" the K was centred in the Veneto .

yes, dear Kate...she had that room on third floor in center of Veneto...

3. Historical evidence suggests that following the great Trojan wars in the early centuries B.C.E,

early centuries B.C.E.?

the Paphlagonians emigrated from modern-day northern Turkey (near modern Sinope), along the Adriatic and eventually into the Veneto. According to the Paphlagonia Theory, these peoples are the ancestors of modern-day Venetians.

For your information, this historical evidence is from Herodotous who realize that Eneti were mentioned by Homer, but not afterwards... so, he asks around and gets answer that they were kicked out from Asia minor after joint campagn they had with Cimmerians.... he than concludes that from Thrace they settled Adriatic coast and are in his time called Veneti...

My theory is that both Cimmerians and Veneti were dominantly I2a people...
and while Veneti were completely kremoved from Asia minor, Cimmerians also known as Gomer/Gimmru..later settled Cappadocia... Cimmerians are my explanbation for I2a island in Asia minor...

The historical evidence that supports the Paphlagonia Theory is ancient. Both Livy and Homer provide literary references that support the Paphlagonia migration. As an ancient Roman historian, Livy kept historical records for much of Italy during the time of Augustus. According to Livy, a population called the Enetae emigrated from their homeland, in Paphlagonia, following the death of their King Pylaemenes in a revolution during the Trojan wars47. The Enetians, explained Livy, migrated westward along the Adriatic coast and eventually settled in the region that constitutes modern-day Veneto.

yes, that is more or less what I also claim.... that Paphlagonia Eneti gave are related to Antes, Adriatic, Celtic and Vistula Veneti...
however, I think that some Veneti peoples lived in Europe much before Eneti were kicked out of Asia minor...

4. the Lusatia Theory is relatively new. It was first pioneered by Slovene author Jozko Savli. T...

5. In 2009, historian Stjepan Pantelic, argues that Slovenes were not descendants of the Slavs. ...

I don't really care about theories of those biased quasi-historians....

6. Many academics reject Savli’s theory, especially Roland Steinarcher, an Austrian historian. Steinarch claims that the Adriatic Veneti, Vistual Veneti, and Veneti of Gaul, are three distinct, unrelated populations”.

another biased quasi-historian

7. According to Strabo, an ancient Greek historian, modern-day Venetians are descendents not from Paphlagonia, nor Lusatia, but in fact, Brittany. Like Steinarcher, Strabo claimed that the Enetae/Veneti translation was incorrect and that the Eneti did not establish the nation of Veneti, as Livy claimed. Instead, Strabo suggest that the Veneti of Gaul, an ancient population of northeast France (modern-day Brittany) migrated to the Veneto and are the ancestors of modern-day Venetians. The Veneti from brittany arrived in the adriatic around 1000 B.C.E and where joined by the remaining Veneti "according to Caesar's Historian" after Caesar enslaved the Veneti of Gaul after his Gallic war.

8. In late 2010 , Dna conclusively had Veneti of the adriatic as R1b U-152

where did you read it..on some forum?
if you want to be serious quote name of scientific paper that claims there....
I couldnot find any...

It seems to me you are solely basing your Venetic theory on Savli's line of which nearly all academics have dismissed.

it seems to me that you are prone to make very wild assumptions about facts...

for record, this is first time I even hear about that Savli person....
I have my own theories that are much more advanced than the ones from some biased Slovene quasi-historian...

You dismiss Homer and Livy, Polybius, Strabo, Pantelic, Wilkes, Alfoldy and Steinarcher to name a few and yet you champion Jordanes, a goth born in Pannonia who only mentions the slavs because he was one of the first to see them cross the Danube in 600 AD

I will not spend words on modern interpreters of history, as they are as credible historic sources as you or yellow press.. ....

but where and why I dismiss Livy, Polybius, Strabo?
quote my sentence, quote theirs...

here is my thread about Veneti
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26066

in fact I open the thread with Strabo's statement of Veneti...his claims are my starting point...

What should be proved with tests was what was the Dna of the Paphlagonians and the brittany Veneti to dismiss claims from these areas.

but no Veneti stayed in Paphlagonia... they were kicked out.. remember?
read Strabo...

To conclude , the 400 samples of the veneti are again being analysed for a second opinion in Barcelona. But then what will we have , modern veneti dna or ancient Venetic dna?

can you quote any scientific paper on topic?
I am really not interested in forum level disinformations....
it is extremly clear from spread of U152 that it is not about Veneti...

BTW i did find this site, might be of some value?

nope...

 

[zanipolo]

http://dna-forums.org/index.php?/blog/2/entry-72-new-papers-on-r1b/

check links inside of scripts

http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/A...-121008/unrestricted/Origins_Report_Final.pdf


http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/nolan/
from above
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/9885/u152snptested.gif

i have more , i will sent on

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-U152/default.aspx?section=results


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)#R1b1a2_.28R-M269.29
see half way down to the numbers which say 60% plus for the north-east Italy ( ladins)
Ladins reside only in the veneto , speak modern venetian ( as well as Italian ) , but also can speak ancient venetian, some say Ladin could be old venetic or euganai or even a part of Friulian, ( which is also part of the three venezia's

 

[zanipolo]

My theory on the illyrians is based on Hittite text which I found a book on.

Hittites had allies and the Egyptians recorded them after Kadesh as the "Drdny" (book by Gurney, The Hittites). Once again, no other peoples resemble this name except for the Dardanians of Illyria.
Other evidence of the Illyrian origins in Asia Minor were mentioned earlier with the connection of the Illyri-Italic Veneti tribe and the Eneti of Paphlagonia in Asia Minor. Likewise, the Illyrian tribe, the Bryges, who once took the city of Epidamnus upon returning from Phyrgia, and the Phyrgians of
This argument is lastly supported by the arrival of the Illyrians (more appropriately, proto-Illyrians as "Illyrianization" did not begin until their settlement in southeastern Europe) in the Balkans coinciding with (twelfth century BC) the fall of Troy, the demise of the Hittite kingdom as well as the historic Bronze Age Collapse (see Robbins, Collapse of the Bronze Age ... ) which resulted in the large-scale movement of peoples into Europe (Dardanians? Phyrgians? Eneti?).

Its the only possible explanation for large movements of people around 1200BC, and take not , the etrusans also say, they came into Italy via the north as they too where from anatolia, they where the Lydians.

The only thing I need to know is , where they a sub-branch of the Hittites.

Note: Eupedia has Hittite dna linked with Italic dna in their data

 

[how yes no 2]

For your information, this historical evidence is from Herodotous who realize that Eneti were mentioned by Homer, but not afterwards...

what I said above is not really correct...
I told there memory I had about what Strabo said.... but I used Herodotous by mistake...probably because Strabo mention him in that part of text...

see half way down to the numbers which say 60% plus for the north-east Italy ( ladins)
Ladins reside only in the veneto ,

speak modern venetian ( as well as Italian ) , but also can speak ancient venetian, some say Ladin could be old venetic or euganai or even a part of Friulian, ( which is also part of the three venezia's

they can also origin from Raetians...
is there DNA testing of speakers of Ladin language?

Hittites had allies and the Egyptians recorded them after Kadesh as the "Drdny" (book by Gurney, The Hittites). Once again, no other peoples resemble this name except for the Dardanians of Illyria.

Drdny is same tribal name as Dardanians....

but than you sneak in Dardanians of Illyria, Dardanians are not the same as Illyrians...Dardanians may have lived in part of Illyria...

Other evidence of the Illyrian origins in Asia Minor were mentioned earlier with the connection of the Illyri-Italic Veneti tribe and the Eneti of Paphlagonia in Asia Minor. Likewise, the Illyrian tribe, the Bryges, who once took the city of Epidamnus upon returning from Phyrgia, and the Phyrgians of

Briges went other way around - from Balkan to Asia minor where they became Phrygians... and I think they also went back to Europe and became Franks.or Fruzi in Serbo-Croat

This argument is lastly supported by the arrival of the Illyrians (more appropriately, proto-Illyrians as "Illyrianization" did not begin until their settlement in southeastern Europe) in the Balkans coinciding with (twelfth century BC) the fall of Troy, the demise of the Hittite kingdom as well as the historic Bronze Age Collapse (see Robbins, Collapse of the Bronze Age ... ) which resulted in the large-scale movement of peoples into Europe (Dardanians? Phyrgians? Eneti?).
Its the only possible explanation for large movements of people around 1200BC, and take not , the etrusans also say, they came into Italy via the north as they too where from anatolia, they where the Lydians.

12th century BC is indeed time of big movements...
bronze age collapse when many middle east civilizations perished...

but I always thought that the flow of invaders in bronze age collapse went from east Europe towards middle East...

Etruscans did move out of Lydia due to hunger....search for that in Herodotous work....there was 18 year long volcanic winter in that period that caused hunger...

The only thing I need to know is , where they a sub-branch of the Hittites.
Note: Eupedia has Hittite dna linked with Italic dna in their data

Hittite's principal God (that can be matched to Zeus in Greece) is called Tarhun, which is identical name to name of Slavic principal God Perun and Baltic principal God Perkūnas...

pre-Hettite people are Hatti, and same God is in their language Taru, which is dientical to principle God of Germanic people Thor

Teshub (also written Teshup or Tešup; cuneiform dIM) was the Hurrian god of sky and storm. He was derived from the Hattian Taru. His Hittite and Luwian name was Tarhun (with variant stem forms Tarhunt, Tarhuwant, Tarhunta), although this name is likely from the Proto-Indo-European Perkūnas[1] or the Hittite root *tarh- to defeat, conquer.[2][3][4]
He is depicted holding a triple thunderbolt and a weapon, usually an axe (often double-headed) or mace. The sacred bull common throughout Anatolia was his signature animal, represented by his horned crown or by his steeds Seri and Hurri, who drew his chariot or carried him on their backs. In the Hurrian schema, he was paired with Hebat the mother goddess; in the Hittite, with the sun goddess of Arinna—a cultus of great antiquity which may ultimately derive from the bull god and mother goddess worshipped at Çatalhöyük in the Neolithic era.
...
According to Hittite myth, one of his greatest acts was the slaying of the dragon Illuyanka.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teshub

if you want to search for Illyrians in Hittite myths, I suggest dragon Illuyanka's followers, as Illyrians are related with snakes...

 

[iapetoc]

My theory on the illyrians is based on Hittite text which I found a book on.

Hittites had allies and the Egyptians recorded them after Kadesh as the "Drdny" (book by Gurney, The Hittites). Once again, no other peoples resemble this name except for the Dardanians of Illyria.
Other evidence of the Illyrian origins in Asia Minor were mentioned earlier with the connection of the Illyri-Italic Veneti tribe and the Eneti of Paphlagonia in Asia Minor. Likewise, the Illyrian tribe, the Bryges, who once took the city of Epidamnus upon returning from Phyrgia, and the Phyrgians of
This argument is lastly supported by the arrival of the Illyrians (more appropriately, proto-Illyrians as "Illyrianization" did not begin until their settlement in southeastern Europe) in the Balkans coinciding with (twelfth century BC) the fall of Troy, the demise of the Hittite kingdom as well as the historic Bronze Age Collapse (see Robbins, Collapse of the Bronze Age ... ) which resulted in the large-scale movement of peoples into Europe (Dardanians? Phyrgians? Eneti?).

Its the only possible explanation for large movements of people around 1200BC, and take not , the etrusans also say, they came into Italy via the north as they too where from anatolia, they where the Lydians.

The only thing I need to know is , where they a sub-branch of the Hittites.

Note: Eupedia has Hittite dna linked with Italic dna in their data

well seems yoy have not interest Greek mythology,

1 Dardanes sons of Dardanos who build Troy

In Greek mythology, Dardanus (Greek: Δάρδανος, English translation: "burned up", from the verb δαρδάπτω (dardapto) to wear, to slay, to burn up)[1] was a son of Zeus and Electra, daughter of Atlas, and founder of the city of Dardania on Mount Ida in the Troad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardanus

So There is a Dardania outside Illyria,
In minor Asia,

so plz Becarefull cause that Dardania has no connection with illyria,

2 that is is Greek, A tribe live in North Greece named as Darnakes
Η καθιέρωση χρήσεως της λέξης δάρι προήλθε, πιστεύουμε, σαν επακόλουθο των Η καθιέρωση χρήσεως της λέξης δάρι προήλθε, πιστεύουμε, σαν επακόλουθο των εκστρατειών των Περσών και ιδιαίτερα του Μεγαβάζου, στρατηγού του Δαρείου, ο οποίος εξετέλεσε την εντολή του Δαρείου, για τον εξανδραποδισμό των Σιροπαιόνων.

http://www.darnakas.gr/darnakasonomasia.htm

the name Darnakes is after Megabaz-os, Persian Satrap, who executed Darius order to slain Siropaiones, a Thracian tribe, the Darinaroi or Darinakoi ->Darnakes are the remants of that,
their land was the Boarder among Makedonians and Persians before Phillip
they have slavic words,
they have Thracian words,
but mostly 70% Greek

3rd is the Illyrian Dardania, who are considered Illyro-Thracians, and not Illyrians,
from Illyria proprie Dicti, or Illyricum, they were allinces with Illyrians, but they spoke Thracian,

so can you tell me when Gurney sais Dardania Hettits why not mentioned the 2 before and why especially the 3rd,
simply Gurney is wrong, if connecting Dardania with Illyria,
the most posiible is that he mentions Dardania the old Troy, the Illawassa,

 

[zanipolo]

well seems yoy have not interest Greek mythology,

1 Dardanes sons of Dardanos who build Troy

In Greek mythology, Dardanus (Greek: Δάρδανος, English translation: "burned up", from the verb δαρδάπτω (dardapto) to wear, to slay, to burn up)[1] was a son of Zeus and Electra, daughter of Atlas, and founder of the city of Dardania on Mount Ida in the Troad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardanus

So There is a Dardania outside Illyria,
In minor Asia,

so plz Becarefull cause that Dardania has no connection with illyria,

2 that is is Greek, A tribe live in North Greece named as Darnakes
Η καθιέρωση χρήσεως της λέξης δάρι προήλθε, πιστεύουμε, σαν επακόλουθο των Η καθιέρωση χρήσεως της λέξης δάρι προήλθε, πιστεύουμε, σαν επακόλουθο των εκστρατειών των Περσών και ιδιαίτερα του Μεγαβάζου, στρατηγού του Δαρείου, ο οποίος εξετέλεσε την εντολή του Δαρείου, για τον εξανδραποδισμό των Σιροπαιόνων.

http://www.darnakas.gr/darnakasonomasia.htm

the name Darnakes is after Megabaz-os, Persian Satrap, who executed Darius order to slain Siropaiones, a Thracian tribe, the Darinaroi or Darinakoi ->Darnakes are the remants of that,
their land was the Boarder among Makedonians and Persians before Phillip
they have slavic words,
they have Thracian words,
but mostly 70% Greek

3rd is the Illyrian Dardania, who are considered Illyro-Thracians, and not Illyrians,
from Illyria proprie Dicti, or Illyricum, they were allinces with Illyrians, but they spoke Thracian,

so can you tell me when Gurney sais Dardania Hettits why not mentioned the 2 before and why especially the 3rd,
simply Gurney is wrong, if connecting Dardania with Illyria,
the most posiible is that he mentions Dardania the old Troy, the Illawassa,

The only thing we disagree on is you say the dardanian where greek from anatolia and I say they where illyrian from anatolia.

my theory is based on books from the hittites arcives/letters

so in around 1200BC, the hittites, eneti, illyrians, etruscans ( lydians), and others all fled Anatolia, through thrace, through northern Greece, and dispersed allong the adriatic lands with the etruscans residings in lombardia and tuscany

 

[iapetoc]

The only thing we disagree on is you say the dardanian where greek from anatolia and I say they where illyrian from anatolia.

my theory is based on books from the hittites arcives/letters

so in around 1200BC, the hittites, eneti, illyrians, etruscans ( lydians), and others all fled Anatolia, through thrace, through northern Greece, and dispersed allong the adriatic lands with the etruscans residings in lombardia and tuscany

well we still dont'know about Hetit Y-Dna, or as long I know,
I read somwhere probably G or R1b

Acoording the language,
Etruscans were Not Hittits, they spoke Pelasgic, Non IE,
Etruscans Minoan Phillistines Illyrians of proprie and part of Greeks are considered Pelasgic not Hettit,
so 2 of your claims are wrong,
the only similar with Hettit are Thracians at least Linguistic

about Carniola, many times I said about a minor asian branch that travel From Caria to Corinth to Carniola,
religious Carni means meat eaters in Homeric,
at some ancient Mysteries ceremonies only Cretans and some Carians allowed to eat meat.
there is connection of Caria with Corinthia with Carniola, so Carni people do not travel by land but by sea,
Veneti are the only tribe that travel by foot all the way from minor asia to Istria and Dunab,

so be more becarefull, cause History and linguistic markers, are not proving the one you say,

Illyrians Proprie descent from Pelasgians from before 2000 Bc,
Etruscans are pelasgians, and archaiology proves that were there almost same time with Minoans, probably before 3000 Bc (Pyrgi)
about Veneti the time is much younger than the 2 above,
in fact Veneti push Vryges and they move to minor Asia

now books about Hettites and letters?
only few words exist, and their alphabet is the Akkadian,
so no Connection of Etruscans (Pelasgic-Phoenician) or Illyrians (Greek-Messapic)
with Hettites, in fact I believe they were G2a although I can not deny a R1b,
probably your theory is another Nationalistic claim just for the people, for inner consum,


and something else,

I don't say the Dardanians were Greek form Anatolia,
I gave you Drdn with your Hettit aproach,
probably Hettits are mentioning the Dardania of Troy
Pelasgic area, not Hettit area, and not the Dardania of Thrace, or the Illyro-Thracian Dardania

so plz dont put words in my mouth.
in fact at that time the only Greeks were the Epirotans Γραικοι.

seems like you Deny the Pelasgians

 

[how yes no 2]

The only thing we disagree on is you say the dardanian where greek from anatolia and I say they where illyrian from anatolia.

my theory is based on books from the hittites arcives/letters

so in around 1200BC, the hittites, eneti, illyrians, etruscans ( lydians), and others all fled Anatolia, through thrace, through northern Greece, and dispersed allong the adriatic lands with the etruscans residings in lombardia and tuscany

in my opinion, Dardanians are neither Greek nor Illyrians...
they are separate people...

I agree that there was massive settlement wave from Asia minor to Europe... but I do not relate it to bronze age collapse... I think that bronze age collapse was wave of invaders going in other way from north to south...from east Euroasia (Thrace or Caucasus?) towards Egypt

Etruscans left Lydia due to 18 year long hunger.... not related to bronze age collapse, but to volcanic winter due to Hecka-3 eruption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hekla_3_eruption

The Lydians have very nearly the same customs as the Hellenes, with the exception that these last do not bring up their girls the same way. So far as we have any knowledge, the Lydians were the first to introduce the use of gold and silver coin, and the first who sold good retail. They claim also the invention of all the games which are common to them with the Hellenes. These they declare that they invented about the time when they colonized Tyrrhenia [i.e., Etruria] , an event of which they give the following account. In the days of Atys the son of Manes, there was great scarcity through the whole land of Lydia. For some time the Lydians bore the affliction patiently, but finding that it did not pass away, they set to work to devise remedies for the evil. Various expedients were discovered by various persons: dice, knuckle-bones, and ball, and all such games were invented, except checkers, the invention of which they do not claim as theirs. The plan adopted against the famine was to engage in games one day so entirely as not to feel any craving for food, and the next day to eat and abstain from games. In this way they passed eighteen years.
Still the affliction continued, and even became worse. So the king determined to divide the nation in half, and to make the two portions draw lots, the one to stay, the other to leave the land. He would continue to reign over those whose lot it should be to remain behind; the emigrants should have his son Tyrrhenus for their leader. The lot was cast, and they who had to emigrate went down to Smyrna, and built themselves ships, in which, after they had put on board all needful stores, they sailed away in search of new homes and better sustenance. After sailing past many countries, they came to Umbria, where they built cities for themselves, and fixed their residence. Their former name of Lydians they laid aside, and called themselves after the name of the king=s son, who led the colony, Tyrrhenians.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/etrucans2.html

look now at chronology

1197 BC: Ramses III of Egypt repels attacks by northern invaders (the "Sea-Peoples").
1194 BC: The beginning of the legendary Trojan War.
1186 BC: End of the Nineteenth dynasty of Egypt, start of the Twentieth Dynasty.
April 24, 1184 BC: Traditional date for the fall of Troy, Asia Minor to the Mycenaeans and their allies. This marks the end of the Trojan War of Greek mythology.
1180 BC: Collapse of Hittite power in Anatolia with the destruction of their capital Hattusa.
April 16, 1178 BC: A solar eclipse may mark the return of Odysseus, legendary King of Ithaca, to his kingdom after the Trojan War. He discovers a number of suitors competing to marry his wife Penelope, whom they believe to be a widow, in order to succeed him on the throne. He organizes their slaying and re-establishes himself on the throne.
1159 BC: The Hekla 3 eruption triggers an 18-year period of climatic worsening.
c. 1150 BC: End of Egyptian rule in Palestine. Rameses VI last Pharaoh acknowledged.
c. 1120 BC: destruction of Troy VIIb1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_century_BC

bronze age collapse can be due to sea peoples... because their conquest on Egypt is in same time frame with fall of Hattusa... Troy was in my opinion not in place where it is claimed it is.... but I do not know where it could have been....

Eneti are kicked out from Asia minor some time after Troyan war due to their conquest with Cimmerians.... perhaps Eneti were part of sea peoples?

And then comes Paphlagonia and the Eneti. Writers question whom the poet means by "the Eneti," when he says,“And the rugged heart of Pylaemenes led the Paphlagonians, from the land of the Eneti, whence the breed of wild mules;
”11for at the present time, they say, there are no Eneti to be seen in Paphlagonia, though some say that there is a village12 on the Aegialus13 ten schoeni14 distant from Amastris. But Zenodotus writes "from Enete,"15 and says that Homer clearly indicates the Amisus of today. And others say that a tribe called Eneti, bordering on the Cappadocians, made an expedition with the Cimmerians and then were driven out to the Adriatic Sea.16 But the thing upon which there is general agreement is, that the Eneti, to whom Pylaemenes belonged, were the most notable tribe of the Paphlagonians, and that, furthermore, these made the expedition with him in very great numbers, but, losing their leader, crossed over to Thrace after the capture of Troy, and on their wanderings went to the Enetian country,17 as it is now called. According to some writers, Antenor and his children took part in this expedition and settled at the recess of the Adriatic, as mentioned by me in my account of Italy.18 It is therefore reasonable to suppose that it was on this account that the Eneti disappeared and are not to be seen in Paphlagonia. [9]

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0198:book=12:chapter=3

btw. Cappadocia is settled by Syrians and that matches I2a hotspot there....
this is regarding my claims that Veneti and Serians were I2a people..some accounts mention also Cimmerians being Cappadocians...so it makes sense that Cimmerians were same as Serians / Syrians

As for the Paphlagonians, they are bounded on the east by the Halys River, which, according to Herodotus, “flows from the south between the Syrians and the Paphlagonians and empties into the Euxine Sea, as it is called;”19by "Syrians," however, he means the "Cappadocians," and in fact they are still today called "White Syrians," while those outside the Taurus are called "Syrians." As compared with those this side the Taurus, those outside have a tanned complexion, while those this side do not, and for this reason received the appellation "white." And Pindar says that the Amazons“swayed a 'Syrian' army that reached afar with their spears,
” thus clearly indicating that their abode was in Themiscyra. Themiscyra is in the territory of the Amiseni; and this territory belongs to the White Syrians, who live in the country next after the Halys River. On the east, then, the Paphlagonians are bounded by the Halys River; on the south by Phrygians and the Galatians who settled among them; on the west by the Bithynians and the Mariandyni (for the race of the Cauconians has everywhere been destroyed), and on the north by the Euxine

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0198:book=12:chapter=3

now, this is where Cimmerians settled in Europe, that is where archeological findings related to them are found

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Cimmerians

note branch that goes to north Italy Venetic areas......

now look at early Slavs

they match very well Cimmerians or Serians/ Syrians....
there is also notable correlation with spread of I2a2

Bavarian geographer manuscript claims that the state of Zeruiani was so big that all Slavic people origin from it.... some historians see Zeruiani as corruption of Serb tribal name... but it is obviously wider, it is about Serians/Syrians/ Cimmerians....

Veneti and Syrians/Cimmerians were neigbours in Asia minor, they waged wars together....it is reasonable to assume shared origin...

link to Veneti is I2a, and early Slavs said to be of Venetic race that is now scattered among many tribes and peoples....

Antes are tribe that was both among Sarmatians and early Slavs... Antes is obviously same tribal name as Eneti....
I think that Eneti split in several parts.... some went to Adriatic, some to Vistula, some to Britanny, some to north of Black sea.... but not all those migrations were at time when they were kicked from Paphlagonia... I think Adriatic Veneti and Britanny Veneti did split match earlier... and north of Black sea was settled by related I2a Cimmerians much before...

look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Noahsworld_map.png

there is Gomer and Riphat both south and north of Black sea
Gomer are Gimmru or Cimmerians and are in Cappadocia...
Riphat is in bible son of Gomer, those are Paphlagonians or Eneti...

Gomer is also considered to be forefather of Germanic people... that is additional clue that these are haplogroup I people....

now, Eneti from Paphlagonia were kicked out from there, but Cappadocians/Syrians / Cimmerians stayed....
and also the one north of Black sea stayed there...

look at I2a map now...I2a spread in Cappadocia and north of Black sea

I think it is clear...

 

[zanipolo]

in my opinion, Dardanians are neither Greek nor Illyrians...
they are separate people...

I agree that there was massive settlement wave from Asia minor to Europe... but I do not relate it to bronze age collapse... I think that bronze age collapse was wave of invaders going in other way from north to south...from east Euroasia (Thrace or Caucasus?) towards Egypt

Etruscans left Lydia due to 18 year long hunger.... not related to bronze age collapse, but to volcanic winter due to Hecka-3 eruption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hekla_3_eruption



http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/etrucans2.html

look now at chronology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_century_BC

bronze age collapse can be due to sea peoples... because their conquest on Egypt is in same time frame with fall of Hattusa... Troy was in my opinion not in place where it is claimed it is.... but I do not know where it could have been....

Eneti are kicked out from Asia minor some time after Troyan war due to their conquest with Cimmerians.... perhaps Eneti were part of sea peoples?



http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0198:book=12:chapter=3

btw. Cappadocia is settled by Syrians and that matches I2a hotspot there....
this is regarding my claims that Veneti and Serians were I2a people..some accounts mention also Cimmerians being Cappadocians...so it makes sense that Cimmerians were same as Serians / Syrians



http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0198:book=12:chapter=3

now, this is where Cimmerians settled in Europe, that is where archeological findings related to them are found

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Cimmerians

note branch that goes to north Italy Venetic areas......

now look at early Slavs

they match very well Cimmerians or Serians/ Syrians....
there is also notable correlation with spread of I2a2

Bavarian geographer manuscript claims that the state of Zeruiani was so big that all Slavic people origin from it.... some historians see Zeruiani as corruption of Serb tribal name... but it is obviously wider, it is about Serians/Syrians/ Cimmerians....

Veneti and Syrians/Cimmerians were neigbours in Asia minor, they waged wars together....it is reasonable to assume shared origin...

link to Veneti is I2a, and early Slavs said to be of Venetic race that is now scattered among many tribes and peoples....

Antes are tribe that was both among Sarmatians and early Slavs... Antes is obviously same tribal name as Eneti....
I think that Eneti split in several parts.... some went to Adriatic, some to Vistula, some to Britanny, some to north of Black sea.... but not all those migrations were at time when they were kicked from Paphlagonia... I think Adriatic Veneti and Britanny Veneti did split match earlier... and north of Black sea was settled by related I2a Cimmerians much before...

look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Noahsworld_map.png

there is Gomer and Riphat both south and north of Black sea
Gomer are Gimmru or Cimmerians and are in Cappadocia...
Riphat is in bible son of Gomer, those are Paphlagonians or Eneti...

Gomer is also considered to be forefather of Germanic people... that is additional clue that these are haplogroup I people....

now, Eneti from Paphlagonia were kicked out from there, but Cappadocians/Syrians / Cimmerians stayed....
and also the one north of Black sea stayed there...

look at I2a map now...I2a spread in Cappadocia and north of Black sea

I think it is clear...

So, reading your information, you seem to conclude with Strabo that the Veneti came from Brittany into the adriatic zone as part of the Celtic migration running West to East.
This then appeared that these Celtic-veneti moved in a northly and southeasterly direction ( heading towards thrace) while at a similar time, the anatolian migration moved in a north westerly direction into illyria ( but below the celtic movement).

This can explain why celts once reaching "basically Vienna " dispersed north , east and south. The venetics of the adriatic would have tried to settle in an area which was a funnel of immigrations , that is between the alps and the adriatic.

Maybe the slovenes are correct in that they say they are not slavs, but are of Celtic-venetic culture who's ancestors on the eastern side of the Julian alps where slavitized in the 6th century AD ( while the western parts of the Julian alps was latinized by the Romans around 100BC )

This will also make sense, on how the Bavarians where pushed from there alpine area into there current position. Austrian language is a Bavarian dialect.

Polybius noted , that the veneti in the adriatic was only on the coast and that the interior where celts or where they illyrians as they had a common language with the histrians and Lubarni
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0234:book=2:chapter=17&highlight=

then again North Picene was illyrian or where they veneti ( as there script is venetic) while the south Picene where Sabellic.

Also we have that all rivers in northern Italy are named after rivers in france and britain.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0064:entry=gallia-cisalpina-geo

We must conclude that the immigrants would have named them after the areas they departed from.
Also in the text it mentions that north of the Po was associated with old welsh language.................
except by a comparison of the old Italian languages with the existing Cumri (Welsh), or with the Gaelic, and by an examination of the names of the mountains, rivers, and other natural features of the Italian peninsula, which we may assume to be the oldest historical records that exist of the inhabitants of Italy.


We need to examine the celtic/gallic migrations that went West to East because it would be illogical to say these people did not migrate while other races did

East of the Athesis in the hill country the position of the Medoaci was probably in the upper valleys of the two rivers named Medoacus or Meduacus; and in the mountains above the head of the Adriatic were the Carni, a Celtic people,--for there were Celtae in these parts. [CARNI] The country between the Adige and the Carni was Venetia, or the country of the Veneti, which is generally excluded from the descriptions of Gallia Cisalpina in the limited sense; and this is correct enough, for the Romans had no wars with the Veneti, and their writers have not told us that they were Galli. This name, one of the oldest national names of Italy, has subsisted to the present day. If the Veneti were Celtae or Galli, they belong to some very early migration, and the supposition that they were Celtae, is at least as probable as any other. The remark of Polybius (2.17) as to their language, is not decisive against the supposition of their being of Gallic or Celtic stock. Herodotus (5.9) had heard of the Heneti or Eneti on the Adriatic, and he speaks of Eneti (1.196) as Illyrians, from which, even if it be true, we can conclude nothing, except that the Eneti, who are probably the Veneti, were on the Adriatic in the fifth century before our era. Strabo (p. 212) gives two traditions about the Veneti; one that they were from the Armoric Veneti in Gallia, and another that they were from the Paphlagonian Heneti. In another place (p. 195) he has a sensible remark on this matter: he says, “I think that these Veneti of Transalpine Gallia were the parent stock of the Veneti on the Hadriatic, for nearly all the rest of the Celtae who are in Italy, here migrated thither from the country beyond the Alps, like the Boii and the Senones; but on account of the sameness of name (some) say that they are Paphlagonians. However, I do not speak positively, for in such matters probability is sufficient.” This passage contains a good deal. First, it states that nearly all the Celtae of Italy came from the country beyond the Alps, which implies that there were some Celtae who did not come from Transalpine Gallia; secondly, he means to say, that the Veneti are Celtae, for he says, “nearly all the rest of the Celtae,” which implies that the Veneti were Celtae. Besides, if they were not Celtae, but something else, he would not have supposed that they were descendants of the Transalpine Veneti. His text clearly means that they were Celtae. His argument for their Transalpine origin is not worth much. We might just as well suppose these Italian Veneti to be the progenitors of the Transalpine Veneti; for, as Herodotus says, “in a very long time any thing may take place.”

 

[Zajaz]

The Dorian extraction of Macedones and their relations with Thracians

By: Musë Gurabia

© www.albpelasgian.com
© www.arberiaonline.com

Instead of introduction

The question whether the ancient Macedones were Greeks or not has triggered endless debates among scholarship since XIXth century onwards. The attempts to solve that puzzle were not always of scholar motivation: the involving of modern nationalism in historical domains has tangled the whole issue of Macedones. The question of the actual racial origins of the ancient Macedonians cannot be answered adequately on the basis of the language or of social and religious customs in historical times.

It is, however, historically an unprofitable question, which has only gained in importance in modern times because it has been taken up by nationalists of all kinds in the Balkans and elsewhere and exploited, according to the answer, in the service of territorial and other claims. Hence it is not surprise at all to find out senseless claims either by Greeks and Slavs of Macedonia, whose purpose is to usurp the throne of historical owner of Macedonia.

A scholar who enters on such debate does not have an easy task: first and foremost, he must necessarily refrain from taking any biased political position. What does this mean? The nationalist historiographies systematically have abused with the ancient testimonies and archeological excavations by enhancing the importance of some details in expense of others. Without any scruple, Greek nationalist freaks carry infamous signs like: “Μακεδονία 4000 χρόνια ελληνικής ιστορίας και πολιτισμού (Macedonia: 4000 Years of Greek History and Civilization). In a burst of national pride, they are going to ascribe deceitfully an artificial Hellenism to Macedonia; thereby to justify their nationalist policies in Macedonia.

Actually we have received a number of ancient sources that have been preserved through millennia, who at least are profuse in number. But at the same time, they are quite vague and not clear references; as a matter of fact, the scholars drew up different interpretations. Although the situation is not as hopeless as it seem at the first glimpse: one who is going to dedicate his time on searching the roots of Macedones has to sift with great of caution the ancient sources by omitting corrupted parts.

Who were the Dorians?

It has been assumed that Macedonians owe their origin to the tribes which later were identified as primarily Dorian. In the period which followed the unstable Iron Age, Dorians were established on both sides of the northern extension of the Pindus range. Being restricted into barren mountains, the Proto-Dorians were fond to acquire new arable lands. The trajectory of their migration is treated by a number of scholars in different ways. But all of them principally agree that this migration begun from Pindus range (probably in the early seventh century) with the ultimate destination to the fertile plain of Emathia.

The proponents of Greek origin of Macedones base their claim largely on the groundless assumption that Dorian pool was Greek speaking from the very outset. This assumption led them naturally to suggest that Macedonians were Greeks, although not the same with the rest of Greeks. Such a conclusion leaves much to be desired.

Dorians, to begin with, were a conglomeration of tribes who established themselves as overlords of a large section of historical Greece. Scholars still are unsure about the primordial homeland of Dorians: the Dorians were thought to have come from Northern Danubian regions. Dalmatia and Pannonia might have been the very first seats of them before they swamp into southern part of Balkans.

An Illyrian component among them is recognized by a various range of scholars. According to the tradition, there were three main Dorian tribes: Ὑλλέας καὶ Παμφύλους καὶ Δυμανάτας (Hylleis, Pamphyloi, and Dymanatai). Ps-Scylax in his geographical description of eastern shores of Adriatic gives some valuable hints on what we may justly call as Proto-Dorians:

[22]: “The barbarians called Lotus-eaters are the following: Hierastamnai, Boulinoi (Hyllinoi), coterminous with Boulinoi the Hylloi. And these say Hyllos son of Herakles settled them: and they are barbarians. [...] And Boulinoi are an Illyric nation”.

[22]: Εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ οἱ λωτοφάγοι καλούμενοι βάρβαροι οἵδε• Ἱεραστάμναι, Βουλινοὶ Ὑλλινοί• Βουλινῶν ὁμοτέρμονεςὝλλοι. Οὗτοι δέ φασιν Ὕλλον τὸν Ἡρακλέους αὐτοὺς κατοικίσαι• εἰσὶ δὲ βάρβαροι. [...]Βουλινοὶ δ᾽ εἰσὶν ἔθνος Ἰλλυρικόν.

This leaves some room to doubt that Proto-Dorians seemingly were similar to the historical Illyrians since they used to live in the same territories. There is absolutely no reliable evidence to attribute any Greek origin to them while it is apparently known that Greeks as an ethnos were not yet consolidated. Thucydides tries to recount this chaotic state:

[1.3]: “The feebleness of antiquity is further proved to me by the circumstance that there appears to have been no common action in Hellas before the Trojan War. And I am inclined to think that the very name was not as yet given to the whole country, and in fact did not exist at all before the time of Hellen, the son of Deucalion; the different tribes, of which the Pelasgian was the most widely spread, gave their own names to different districts”.

[1.3]: δηλοῖ δέ μοι καὶ τόδε τῶν παλαιῶν ἀσθένειαν οὐχ ἥκιστα: πρὸγὰρ τῶν Τρωικῶν οὐδὲν φαίνεται πρότερον κοινῇ ἐργασαμένη ἡἙλλάς: [2] δοκεῖ δέ μοι, οὐδὲ τοὔνομα τοῦτο ξύμπασά πω εἶχεν,ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν πρὸ Ἕλληνος τοῦ Δευκαλίωνος καὶ πάνυ οὐδὲ εἶναιἡ ἐπίκλησις αὕτη, κατὰ ἔθνη δὲ ἄλλα τε καὶ τὸ Πελασγικὸν ἐπὶπλεῖστον ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν παρέχεσθαι

Pausanias reports that Dorian expedition took place two generation later after the Trojan War:

[4.3.3 ]: “After the conclusion of the Trojan war and the death of Nestor after his return home, the Dorian expedition and return of the Heracleidae, which took place two generations later, drove the descendants of Nestor from Messenia”.

[4.3.3]: διαπολεμηθέντος δὲ τοῦ πρὸς Ἴλιον πολέμου καὶ Νέστορος ὡς ἐπανῆλθεν οἴκαδε τελευτήσαντος, Δωριέων στόλος καὶ ἡ κάθοδος Ἡρακλειδῶν γενομένη δύο γενεαῖς ὕστερον ἐξέβαλε τοὺς Νηλέως ἀπογόνους ἐκ τῆς Μεσσηνίας.

However, this does not explain for instance what was the ethnic relation of Dorians with the old inhabitants like Achaians who got heavily contracted in the most barren sections of the country. Strabo makes it explicit that many of the former inhabitants were simply driven out by the newcomers:

[009.001.007]: But after the return of the Heracleidae and the partitioning of the country, it came to pass that many of the former inhabitants were driven out of their homelands into Attica by the Heracleidae and the Dorians who came back with them.

[009.001.007]: μετὰ δὲ τὴν τῶν Ἡρακλειδῶν κάθοδον καὶ τὸν τῆς χώρας μερισμὸν ὑπ’ αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν συγκατελθόντων αὐτοῖς Δωριέων ἐκπεσεῖν τῆς οἰκείας συνέβη πολλοὺς εἰς τὴν Ἀττικήν

It is quite plausible that Dorians were at least perceived as not having the slightest tie with the Achaians. With the drift of time, they were apparently influenced by the much-advanced Achaians to the degree they were assimilated.

[Herodotus: 68]: Thus he had done to Adrastos; and he also changed the names of the Dorian tribes, in order that the Sikyonians might not have the same tribes as the Argives; in which matter he showed great contempt of the Sikyonians, for the names he gave were taken from the names of a pig and an ass by changing only the endings”.

[Herodotus: 68]: ταῦτα μὲν ἐς Ἄδρηστόν οἱ ἐπεποίητο, φυλὰς δὲ τὰς Δωριέων, ἵνα δὴ μὴ αἱ αὐταὶ ἔωσι τοῖσι Σικυωνίοισι καὶ τοῖσι Ἀργείοισι, μετέβαλε ἐς ἄλλα οὐνόματα. ἔνθα καὶ πλεῖστον κατεγέλασε τῶν Σικυωνίων• ἐπὶ γὰρ ὑός τε καὶ ὄνου τὰς ἐπωνυμίας μετατιθεὶς αὐτὰ τὰ τελευταῖα ἐπέθηκε, πλὴν τῆς ἑωυτοῦ φυλῆς• ταύτῃ δὲ τὸ οὔνομα ἀπὸ τῆς ἑωυτοῦ ἀρχῆς ἔθετο

It is again Strabo who points out that Dorians lost the intercourse with the rest of Dorians, and as a matter of fact they were no longer a part of the same tribe as before:

[Strabo 008.001.002]: “...the Dorians too, since they were few in number and lived in a most rugged country, have, because of their lack of intercourse with others, changed their speech and their other customs to the extent that they are no longer a part of the same tribe as before. And this was precisely the case with the Athenians”.

[Strabo 008.001.002]: “…καὶ τοὺς Δωριέας δὲ ὀλίγους ὄντας καὶ τραχυτάτην οἰκοῦντας χώραν εἰκός ἐστι τῷ ἀνεπιμίκτῳ παρατρέψαι τὴν γλῶτταν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἔθη πρὸς τὸ μὴ ὁμογενές, ὁμογενεῖς πρότερον ὄντας. τοῦτο δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις συνέβη”.

The mutual animosity between Dorians and Achaians lasted as we may infer from ancient sources at least until the Classical period. According to Herodotus, Dorians were strictly prohibited from entering to the Achaian temples on the grounds they were foreigners. According to him, Cleomenes tried to trick the women priests by faking his origin: “Woman, I am not a Dorian, but an Achaian.” ( «ὦ γύναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ Δωριεύς εἰμι ἀλλ᾽ Ἀχαιός.»).

It should be duly pointed out that there was a gigantic gap between the external name of a tribe and its real origin. It was a common practice in the very antiquity to label a people on the basis of a noteworthy king. We may note in passing, Eurpides in his ‘Archelaus’ who has preserved an interesting glimpse which cast some light to our idea:

“Danaus, who was the father of fifty daughters, having arrived in Argos inhabited the city of Inachus, and made a law that those who had before borne the name of Pelasgiotæ throughout Greece should be called Danai.”

Also we have seen in the quoted fragment of Herodotus, the Sikyonians desired to count themselves as equal with the Arigives. For that purpose, Adrastos is said to have changed only the endings of names. This seems to suggest that Hellenism (if we are to use the Classical connotation of the term) never affected Dorians, who preserved a distinct individuality during all the time.

Let us turn back to the scope of chapter. Does the Dorian extraction of Macedones indicate any kind of Hellenism? The answer is a doubtless NO. We have squarely argued that Dorians got Hellenized during their intercourse with the Achaians to the level they were no longer similar with the rest of Dorians. Anyway, the warped assumption that the Dorians of Pindus were Greeks at that time is not sustained at best or groundless at worst.

It has been even assumed that historical Macedonians sprung from Southern Dorians on the grounds that the same southern toponymes could be found as well in Pindus:

[STRABO 008.003.031]: “…and they point out the site of the city on a lofty place between Ossa and Olympus, two mountains that bear the same name as those in Thessaly”.

[STRABO 008.003.031]: “…Πῖσαν εἰρῆσθαι, οἷον πίστραν, ὅπερ ἐστὶ ποτίστρα• τὴν δὲ πόλιν ἱδρυμένην ἐφ’ ὕψους δεικνύουσι μεταξὺ δυεῖν ὀροῖν, Ὄσσης καὶ Ὀλύμπου, ὁμωνύμων τοῖς ἐν Θετταλίᾳ”.

In all probability, a bunch of northern names (like Ossa, Olympus, etc) were spread most likely by any wave of Dorian wanderers. Their presence around the mount Olympus is backed up even by the authority of Diodorus Siculus. He furnishes us with the following excerpt:

[V.80.2]: “The third people to cross over to the island, we are told, were Dorians, under the leadership of Tectamus the son of Dorus; and the account states that the larger number of these Dorians was gathered from the regions about Olympus…”

[V.80.2]: τρίτον δὲ γένος φασὶ τῶν Δωριέων παραβαλεῖν εἰς τὴν νῆσον ἡγουμένου Τεκτάμου τοῦ Δώρου• τούτου δὲ τοῦ λαοῦ μέρος τὸ μὲν πλέον ἀθροισθῆναι λέγουσιν ἐκ τῶν περὶ τὸν Ὄλυμπον τόπων”.

The Dorian extraction of Macedones is indicated originally from the authority of Herodotus who points out that people who later began to be called as Dorian dwelt initially in Pindos and were called “Makednian”:

[Herodotus, Book I. 56]: “…for in the reign of Deucalion this race dwelt in Pthiotis, and in the time of Doros the son of Hellen in the land lying below Ossa and Olympos, which is called Histiaiotis; and when it was driven from Histiaiotis by the sons of Cadmos, it dwelt in Pindos and was called Makednian; and thence it moved afterwards to Dryopis, and from Dryopis it came finally to Peloponnesus, and began to be called Dorian”.

[I,56]… ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ Δευκαλίωνος βασιλέος οἴκεε γῆν τὴν Φθιῶτιν, ἐπὶ δὲ Δώρου τοῦ Ἕλληνος τὴν ὑπὸ τὴν Ὄσσαν τε καὶ τὸν Ὄλυμπον χώρην, καλεομένην δὲ Ἱστιαιῶτιν• ἐκ δὲ τῆς Ἱστιαιώτιδος ὡς ἐξανέστη ὑπὸ Καδμείων, οἴκεε ἐν Πίνδῳ Μακεδνὸν καλεόμενον• ἐνθεῦτεν δὲ αὖτις ἐς τὴν Δρυοπίδα μετέβη καὶ ἐκ τῆς Δρυοπίδος οὕτω ἐς Πελοπόννησον ἐλθὸν Δωρικὸν ἐκλήθη.

If we are to believe Herodotus opinion, Dorians began to be called with this name in the moment they finally came to Peloponnesus. Hence it is not far from the truth that Macedones owe their origin not to Hellenized Dorians of Peloponnesus but to the ones living in Pindos.

The emergence of Macedonian ethnos: the story of Argeads

Much has been written for the establishment of Argead Macedones in the Emathia plain. The ancient writers were somehow more focused on the chief leaders rather than people around them. Herodotus in his story recounts the wanderings of three ‘Macedonian’ brothers and their itinerary:

[137]. Now of this Alexander the seventh ancestor was that Perdiccas who first became despot of the Macedonians, and that in the manner which here follows: From Argos there fled to the Illyrians three brothers of the descendents of Temenos, Gauanes, Aëropos, and Perdiccas; and passing over from the Illyrians into the upper parts of Macedonia they came to the city of Lebaia.

[137]. τοῦ δὲ Ἀλεξάνδρου τούτου ἕβδομος γενέτωρ Περδίκκης ἐστὶ ὁ κτησάμενος τῶν Μακεδόνων τὴν τυραννίδα τρόπῳ τοιῷδε. ἐξ Ἄργεος ἔφυγον ἐς Ἰλλυριοὺς τῶν Τημένου ἀπογόνων τρεῖς ἀδελφεοί, Γαυάνης τε καὶ Ἀέροπος καὶ Περδίκκης, ἐκ δὲ Ἰλλυριῶν ὑπερβαλόντες ἐς τὴν ἄνω Μακεδονίην ἀπίκοντο ἐς Λεβαίην πόλιν.

The link with the Peloponnesian Argos is either tenuous and is devoid from historical reality and as such it has been a subject of reproach. Robert M. Errington concedes:

“Herodotos, who probably visited Macedonia at the time of this Alexander, recounts the first, perhaps semiofficial, version, which depends on the similarity of sound between the name of the Peloponnesian town Argos and that of the royal famiy name Argeadai” (1990: 2).

Judging from the geographical description given by Herodotus, we may plainly invoke that this Argos is to be found in Orestia. Strabo gives additional hints on the foundation of that city:

[BookVII,8]: It is said that Orestes once took possession of Orestias – when in exile on account of the murder of his mother – and left the country bearing his name; and that he also founded a city and called it Argos Oresticum.

[BookVII,8]: λέγεται δὲ τὴν Ὀρεστιάδα κατασχεῖν ποτε Ὀρέστης φεύγων τὸν τῆς μητρὸς φόνον καὶ καταλιπεῖν ἐπώνυμον ἑαυτοῦ τὴν χώραν,κτίσαι δὲ καὶ πόλιν, καλεῖσθαι δ’ αὐτὴν Ἄργος Ὀρεστικόν.

The so-called ‘Argive’ Macedonians emerged most likely in the proximity of Ἰλλυριοὺς, Ἄργεος and Λεβαίην. Although we have slender evidences about the inhabitants of these districts, it can be safely conjectured that Illyrians prevailed there.

As a matter of fact, original Macedonians were more akin to them rather to any other people. All of these territories were constantly excluded from Hellas proper; the Greek presence is barely to be found at the period we are speaking about. As Argive Macedonians became a powerful clan they swamp eastwardly by conquering a multitude of tribes in the Emathia plain. For a clear picture of this expansion we have to utilize Thucydides records:

[2.99]: “Assembling in Doberus, they prepared for descending from the heights upon Lower Macedonia, where the dominions of Perdiccas lay; for the Lyncestae, Elimiots, and other tribes more inland, though Macedonians by blood and allies and, dependents of their kindred, still have their own separate governments. The country on the sea coast, now called Macedonia, was first acquired by Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his ancestors, originally Temenids from Argos.This was effected by the expulsion from Pieria of the Pierians, who afterwards inhabited Phagres and other places under Mount Pangaeus, beyond the Strymon indeed the country between Pangaeus and the sea is still called the Pierian gulf of the Bottiaeans, at present neighbors of the Chalcidians, from Bottia, and by the acquisition in Paeonia of a narrow strip along the river Axius extending to Pella and the sea; the district of Mygdonia, between the Axius and the Strymon, being also added by the expulsion of the Edonians. From Eordia also were driven the Eordians, most of whom perished, though a few of them still live round Physca, and the Almopians from Almopia. These Macedonians also conquered places belonging to the other tribes, which are still theirs— Anthemus, Crestonia, Bisaltia, and much of Macedonia proper. The whole is now called Macedonia, and at the time of the invasion of Sitalces, Perdiccas, Alexander’s son, was the reigning king.”

[2.99]:“ξυνηθροίζοντο οὖν ἐν τῇ Δοβήρῳ καὶ παρεσκευάζοντο, ὅπωςκατὰ κορυφὴν ἐσβαλοῦσιν ἐς τὴν κάτω Μακεδονίαν, ἧς ὁΠερδίκκας ἦρχεν. τῶν γὰρ Μακεδόνων εἰσὶ καὶ Λυγκησταὶκαὶ Ἐλιμιῶται καὶ ἄλλα ἔθνη ἐπάνωθεν, ἃ ξύμμαχα μέν ἐστιτούτοις καὶ ὑπήκοα, βασιλείας δ᾽ ἔχει καθ᾽ αὑτά. τὴν δὲ παρὰθάλασσαν νῦν Μακεδονίαν Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Περδίκκου πατὴρ καὶοἱ πρόγονοι αὐτοῦ, Τημενίδαι τὸ ἀρχαῖον ὄντες ἐξ Ἄργους, πρῶτοιἐκτήσαντο καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν ἀναστήσαντες μάχῃ ἐκ μὲν ΠιερίαςΠίερας, οἳ ὕστερον ὑπὸ τὸ Πάγγαιον πέραν Στρυμόνος ᾤκησανΦάγρητα καὶ ἄλλα χωρία καὶ ἔτι καὶ νῦν Πιερικὸς κόλποςκαλεῖται ἡ ὑπὸ τῷ Παγγαίῳ πρὸς θάλασσαν γῆ, ἐκ δὲ τῆςΒοττίας καλουμένης Βοττιαίους, οἳ νῦν ὅμοροι Χαλκιδέωνοἰκοῦσιν: τῆς δὲ Παιονίας παρὰ τὸν Ἀξιὸν ποταμὸν στενήντινα καθήκουσαν ἄνωθεν μέχρι Πέλλης καὶ θαλάσσηςἐκτήσαντο, καὶ πέραν Ἀξιοῦ μέχρι Στρυμόνος τὴν Μυγδονίανκαλουμένην Ἠδῶνας ἐξελάσαντες νέμονται. ἀνέστησαν δὲκαὶ ἐκ τῆς νῦν Ἐορδίας καλουμένης Ἐορδούς, ὧν οἱ μὲν πολλοὶἐφθάρησαν, βραχὺ δέ τι αὐτῶν περὶ Φύσκαν κατῴκηται, καὶ ἐξἈλμωπίας Ἄλμωπας. ἐκράτησαν δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐθνῶν οἱΜακεδόνες οὗτοι, ἃ καὶ νῦν ἔτι ἔχουσι, τόν τε Ἀνθεμοῦντα καὶΚρηστωνίαν καὶ Βισαλτίαν καὶ Μακεδόνων αὐτῶν πολλήν. τὸ δὲξύμπαν Μακεδονία καλεῖται, καὶ Περδίκκας Ἀλεξάνδρουβασιλεὺς αὐτῶν ἦν ὅτε Σιτάλκης ἐπῄει.

The above excerpt does not satisfy our curiosity at all if the previous inhabitants were simply driven out or overlaid by the new rulers. Strabo candidly asserts that:

[ 7.5.11]: “But of all these tribes the Argeadae, as they are called, established themselves as master”.

[7. 5. 11]: “Vτούτων δὲ πάντων οἱ Ἀργεάδαι καλούμενοι κατέστησαν κύριοι”.

If the Strabo’s account carries any validity, then we may surmise that there was no massive expulsion of the native inhabitants. The adjacent areas around original seats of Macedonians are not to be ignored, as some desire. It is very common among Greek nationalist historians to dissociate original Macedonians from their nearby neighbors like Illyrians (the progenitors of modern Albanians), Bryghes and various Thracian tribes.

Macedonia’s first dwellers

The continuous intercourse with them had a great importance in the formation of classical Macedonians, which were strictly excluded from Greece, either in terms of ethnicity and geography. It would be an anomaly of its kind to consider that the traces of previous inhabitants were entirely lost with the arrival of Macedonians. We are going to reveal some of these mysterious tribes:

[Herodotus, VII,73]: “Now the Phrygians, as the Macedonians say, used to be called Brigians during the time that they were natives of Europe and dwelt with the Macedonians; but after they had changed into Asia, with their country they changed also their name and were called Phrygians”.

[Herodotus, VII,73]: οἱ δὲ Φρύγες, ὡς Μακεδόνες λέγουσι, ἐκαλέοντο Βρίγες χρόνον ὅσον Εὐρωπήιοι ἐόντες σύνοικοι ἦσαν Μακεδόσι, μεταβάντες δὲ ἐς τὴν Ἀσίην ἅμα τῇ χώρῃ καὶ τὸ οὔνομα μετέβαλον ἐς Φρύγας.

The ancient sources do not clarify about the identity of Bryghes, but nonetheless a couple of sources assign to them as Thracians. Hence, Strabo hammered home:

[7. 3.2]: “And the Phrygians themselves are Brigians, a Thracian tribe...”.

[7. 3.2]: καὶ αὐτοὶ δ’ οἱ Φρύγες Βρίγες εἰσί, Θρᾴκιόν τι ἔθνος…”.

The cultural impact of Bryghes, Mysians, Pierians and the rest of Thracians is yet to be interpreted. Optimistically, we can say that the examination of extant sources reveal that original Macedonians blended to a certain degree with the Thracians who previously occupied a large section of historical Macedonia. The stubbornness of classical Greeks to not accept Macedonians as their own is at least historically justified. The Hellenization of upper strata of Macedonian society was never enough as to eradicate the non-Greek component of Macedonian people.

Ancient sources:

1. Graham Shipley,The Periplous of Pseudo-Scylax: An Interim Translation, 2008
2. Thomas Hobbes, Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War
3. W. H. S. Jones and H. A. Ormero, Pausanias , Description of Greece
4. Loeb Classical Library edition, The Geography of Strabo
5. George Rawlinson, The History of Herodotus

Modern sources:

1. Robert Malcolm Errington, A history of Macedonia, University of California Press, 1990
2. M. V. Sakellariou, Macedonia, 4000 years of Greek history and civilization, Ekdotikè Athenon, 1992
3. Apostolos Vasileiou Daskalakēs, The Hellenism of the ancient Macedonians, Institute for Balkan Studies, 1965

Originally taken from: http://www.albpelasgian.com/the-dor...dones-and-their-relations-with-thracians.html
​

 

[Yetos]

Just 3 words,

1) Dorians

δωριεις τριχακες = dorians from trikka
modern day trikkala, a city east of Pindus west of Ossa and south of Olymp,

Next to Trikka was a city named Aeginion (compare to aegae)


Dorians are from an area that R1a id 2nd in Balkans after Croatia, but the ratios among the diversities follow the ratios of Norway south Italy Grico areas and west Iranic populations,
alternate name for dorians is Locri compare epizephyreian locri S italy,
Locri means lake people (loch), compare with Ellimeians which means Eel people (Elleron-Ellyes)

Locri is name of tribes we found from Lychinitis (Loch->Lych, λοχ-λουχ) to Locris mountain areas and in south Italy ,
Dorians is after city named Doris in Locris area
Dorian language today is Grico in Italy and Tsakonika in Greece,
maybe tsakonika are ancient Illyrian?
Is that you want to prove
Locrians are even today considered pure Doians
meaning that even lake Lychnitis is a Dorian word, (modern is ohrid)
Illyria started above the lake lychnitis wer Illyrus land were, while south of Lychnitis was Cadmus lands,
2) Makedonians never claim Perdikas as their ancestor
But Kardamos,
Makedonians always claim sons of Makednos, son of Hercules,
Argeiads always claim Kardamos as the first King,
Argeiadae also pay respect to Brygians,

Makedonians always consider Thettaleians (Aeolian argos) and Epirotans as their brothers,
Both Thettaleians and Epirotans are consider Aeolian origin.
consider that Pelasgeian argos and aeolian argos is the same area thessaly,




3) Makedonians had as Holy nation also the Brygians, just consider that the Brygians who remained named their selfs MYGDONIANS
so Mygdonians and Brygians = the same
Brygian language was isotones with Greek share many ,
Thrako-Vrygian is part from Greco-aryan,
Brygian language was isotones to Greek
Brygian is still a mystery, Greeks put them to Thracians but seems it belong to a wider family of Greco-aryan
Vrygian god was Tios Bakchos Τιος Βακχος compare greek θεος Βακχος and Slavic Bog
it is clear that Brygians were Centum language,

Just consider The Gordium and the honor Alexander make to the city, why? cause it was Brygian city,
as Edessa next to Makedonian capital


to close subject

YOU ARE TAKING PARTS OF HISTORIANS AND CONNECT THEM TO PROVE WHAT?

THE ONE THAT ARGEIADS ACCEPT ?
THAT PELLA KATADESMOS IS WRONG?

THEN WHY YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THAT DORIANS IS PART OF GREEKS AS THE HISTORIANS OF THAT TIME SAY?

Lakedaimonians did not follow Alexander in his march
BUT ALEXANDER NAMED THEM RELATIVES AND HE DID NOT BURN THEM TO GROUND CAUSE THEY WERE RELATIVES
He punish them as Πλην Λακεδαιμονιοις meaning that they proved cowards or less for such a dare

now you are telling what?
the spartans were not Greeks?
or that Argeiads were not Dorians?
you are trying to prove what? you use ancient Greek writter to prove what-ever came to your mind, but you deny that same writters who put Dorians to Greeks,

Just think the most ancient aegae is not in Makedonia but next to Trikka in Thessaly area from were Dorians named Trichakes

the only connection among Makedonians and Illyrians is that both assimilate Pelasgians
Makedonians assimilate Cadmus areas and Illyrians Illyrus area of old Pelasgian kingdoms

while Makedonians also have connection with Thracians as Pieri etc,
and remember that Brygians that left in Europe named as Mygdonians (Μυγδονες)
compare mygdon-makdon


next time maybe you tell us sarissa is Albanian word
or Spartans were Illyrians who knows,

If Makedonians were not Greeks then why they show respect to many Greek cities,

Besides remember that in Makedonia lived also Cretans (Minoans) named as Bottiaeoi βοττιαιοι
and not βοιωτοι,

NOW LETS SEE WHAT YOU POST

Let us turn back to the scope of chapter. Does the Dorian extraction of Macedones indicate any kind of Hellenism? The answer is a doubtless NO. We have squarely argued that Dorians got Hellenized during their intercourse with the Achaians to the level they were no longer similar with the rest of Dorians. Anyway, the warped assumption that the Dorians of Pindus were Greeks at that time is not sustained at best or groundless at worst.

wow

[Strabo 008.001.002]: “...the Dorians too, since they were few in number and lived in a most rugged country, have, because of their lack of intercourse with others, changed their speech and their other customs to the extent that they are no longer a part of the same tribe as before. And this was precisely the case with the Athenians”.

[Strabo 008.001.002]: “…καὶ τοὺς Δωριέας δὲ ὀλίγους ὄντας καὶ τραχυτάτην οἰκοῦντας χώραν εἰκός ἐστι τῷ ἀνεπιμίκτῳ παρατρέψαι τὴν γλῶτταν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἔθη πρὸς τὸ μὴ ὁμογενές, ὁμογενεῖς πρότερον ὄντας. τοῦτο δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις συνέβη”.

wow

THE PARADOX on the above

according thoukidides Θουκιδιδης Athens spoke Pelasgian-Thyrrenian before Greek,
It change to Greek after the Dorian Invasion
I am not telling that but Thoukidides,
so If Dorians were not Greeks and athenans spoke Thyrrenian that means according Strabo that Dorians learned Thyrrenian,

so either Thoukidides is wrong either Strabo either someone else,

lets see, Thoukidides is not wrong cause atheneans and orchomenos spoke Pelasgian both words Hattica and Orcho are pelasgian words,

Strabo is not making cause indeed Dorians lost their language,

then were is the paradox and the mistake,

the mistake is in wrong time and on writters will to change history and make the white black

At the times of Strabo Dorian was spoken only in South Italy and not in Greece,
Greek spoke mostly Hellenistic which main substactrum was Ionian the Greek language of Athens
when Christian bible was wrotten we have Koine 2 or Hellenistic 1 not dorian not Ionian not achaian,




so what strabo writes is correct, since dorian was spoken only in South Italy due to lack of Hellenism (was not under Alexanders epigoni
Evwn today the Dorian dialect is spoken in Magna Grecia and in Tsakonika few villages in peloponese,

and not that strabo means that dorians accepted Greek language, from Atheneans, since Dorians gave Greek language to atheneans as Thoukidides say,

so the mistake is not in Thoukidides, not in Strabo, but to the one who wants to change history, and slowly fall in to his own paradox he created,
either we are kidnapped to empty, to non logic, to ατοπον (no basis argue)

SO DORIAN DID INDEED SPOKE GREEK

and if Dorian were Illyrians means that illyrians also Spoke Greek

But here we have the second paradox

so the truth is that Dorians were not Illyrians, and spoke Greek

the old mathematical,
false plus false makes coorect F+F=C
so combine 2 false it seems to be correct and you may even convise the most expert
but always when you find the 1rst comes a second false like above,



to those who want to known the dorian language a link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsakonian_language

rember τσακωνω in pontic Greek means detach-separate
while in modern Greek passive voice τσακωνομαι means fight-wrangle, create separation,
that is why tsakonians are believed that were in wrangle with Spartians or separated Lakedaimonians,

 

[Elias2]

Yetos, don't bother trying to argue with nationalistic albanians, they think they are macedons, Illyrians, thracians, etruscan, Pelasgian, atlantian, or any people that were seen as "an ancient great people" because albanians see themselves as a great people, deluded or not. It's called Nationalism, and it shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[Zajaz]

Yetos, don't bother trying to argue with nationalistic albanians, they think they are macedons, Illyrians, thracians, etruscan, Pelasgian, atlantian, or any people that were seen as "an ancient great people" because albanians see themselves as a great people, deluded or not. It's called Nationalism, and it shouldn't be taken seriously.

What has to do the nationalism with the above article? You seem to not have full read the content, which is well backed up with ancient testimonies. Anyway, I picked randomly up that article from "Illyria forums". After the reading, I am more inclined to support the close affinity between Hellenes and Illyrians. They were more close to each other than we think. At least, they shared a common origin. One thing that has struck me so far is the fact that Greek historians of XIX century had no issue to kindly accept that Albanians and Greeks were seeds of a common ancestor. For instance, the renowned Greek historian, Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos thought Macedonians as having Illyrian blood. According to him (apologize if my translation is wrong): "The most plausible scenario about Macedonians is that they were a mixture of Illyrians and Hellenes”.



The crucial problem is the nationalist attitude of modern Greek historians. They do consider Macedonia as something exclusively Hellenic, thereby only Greeks have claim on it. This is decidedly wrong. Macedonians were constantly mixed with the nearby tribes: their identity evolved with the course of centuries. If Paparrigopoulos scenario is true, then Greeks and Albanians are equal in regards with the Macedonia.

 

[zanipolo]

What has to do the nationalism with the above article? You seem to not have full read the content, which is well backed up with ancient testimonies. Anyway, I picked randomly up that article from "Illyria forums". After the reading, I am more inclined to support the close affinity between Hellenes and Illyrians. They were more close to each other than we think. At least, they shared a common origin. One thing that has struck me so far is the fact that Greek historians of XIX century had no issue to kindly accept that Albanians and Greeks were seeds of a common ancestor. For instance, the renowned Greek historian, Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos thought Macedonians as having Illyrian blood. According to him (apologize if my translation is wrong): "The most plausible scenario about Macedonians is that they were a mixture of Illyrians and Hellenes”.
.

The mixture would have been the marriages between Illyrian and macedonians in the "royal" courts. With this , its clear that Illyrians are not macedonians.
History shows that the illyrians "invasion " of the southern balkans began around 1000BC, it is clear also that the first knowledge of illyrians for Greeks happened around 421BC, when Macedonian King, Perdiccas awaited Illyrian mercenaries.
During the pelopessian wars, Diodorus of Syracuse paid Illyrian kings vast amounts of money to take over Epirote lands ( modern Albania ) and put pressure on his opposition. It was only for the Molossian king, harrybas in 384BC , that pushed the illyrians out of Epirus lands.
By 359BC the Macedonians, dardanians, paeonians had already started to push out the illyrians and macedonia established its borders at Lake Lychnitus ( Ohrid). From this time on the illyrians where excluded from all Macedonian affairs , including the future invasion of Persia. You will note the regiments in the macedonian armies, never said illyrian, but did say, paeonians, Odyssians, thracians, dardanians, epirotes, Thessalians etc etc.
So, to conclude the Illyrians where clearly northern balkan people who invaded the south and the Macedonians where noted as always living in the southern balkans

 

[Zajaz]

History shows that the illyrians "invasion " of the southern balkans began around 1000BC, it is clear also that the first knowledge of illyrians for Greeks happened around 421BC, when Macedonian King, Perdiccas awaited Illyrian mercenaries.

I agree with some of your points. But the chronological framework of events is not given satisfactorily. The so-called Illyrian invasion in Southern Balkans might have been occurred much earlier than 1000 B.C. Judging from the general upheaval that proceed the Trojan War, proto-Illyrians appears in the very heart of Greece on the grounds that the same Northern toponymes are to be found in the midst of Hellas. It's excepted that they lost their identity with the course of time.

The mixture would have been the marriages between Illyrian and macedonians in the "royal" courts. With this , its clear that Illyrians are not macedonians.

The mixture which you are talking about was not limited at the royal courts. The Illyrian presence in certain sections of Emathia leaves room to doubt that mixture was massive, even though we cannot define it properly.

You will note the regiments in the macedonian armies, never said illyrian, but did say, paeonians, Odyssians, thracians, dardanians, epirotes, Thessalians etc etc.

You're mistaken mate. It's Alexander himself who did mention the Illyrians in his army. I don't think as wise to consider either Dardanians or Paeonians as ethnically distinct from the Illyrians.

So, to conclude the Illyrians where clearly northern balkan people who invaded the south and the Macedonians where noted as always living in the southern balkans

This is in disregard with the historical truth. Your concept is fairly simplistic because it ignore the very fact that genuine Illyrians (Illyri proper) used to live in the very outlying regions of Greece (whose northern boundary was marked by Ambracia bay and Peneus river). As a matter of fact, Illyrians took part in the formation of Macedonians as well as Epirotes.