Epirus, its Illyrian affiliation

**Epirot** · 08-22-2011, 03:38 PM

An extract taken from Lectures on ancient history, Barthold Georg Niebuhr, p. 134-139

Theopompus, too, had given a minute account of the Epirot tribes, and explained their geography, either in speaking of Philip's first expedition into Epirus, or of his marriage with Olympias. All that Trogus says of Epirus was, no doubt, taken from Theopompus, as may be proved by certain quotations from Theopompus.

The name of Epirus is Απειρος, and that of its inhabitants Απειρωται; thus we read it on coins. We call all nations according to the κοινι, or according to the Attic form; but the ancients commonly called each nation according to its own dialect, and hence they, no doubt, commonly called the Epirots Απειρωται. Thus we read in Plautus Alii for Elii—on coins they call themselves Αλιοι —and the Romans unquestionably called Pyrrhus king of the Apirotae, and not Epirotae. In the earlier times the name Απειρος embraced a much wider range of country, for it extended as far as the entrance of the Corinthian gulf. Acarnania and Aetolia are even in Thucydides included in Epirus.

Epirus is "the continent," in opposition to islands; we find it so especially in the Odyssey and in the Homeric Catalogue, where it is mentioned in opposition to the Cephallenian empire of the islands. Afterwards the name assumed a different meaning. After the Trojan war, the Acarnanians spread over that coast; the Aetolians, by the side of the Curetes, rose from a small to a very large people, and a number of Greek colonies established themselves on that coast. The Acarnauians were late settlers in those parts; in the Iliad they are not yet mentioned there.

In the time of Thucydides, the name Epirots is vague and indefinite, Acarnaniaus, Aetolians, and even Locrians, being mentioned under this name, but especially Arcananians and Aetolians; but in the proper sense, the name Epirots even then, and afterwards generally, was the designation of the nations between the Acroceraunian mountains—the perpetual seat of storm and thunder—and the Ambracian gulf; these nations in the earlier times had no common appellation. But Epirots, as far as their origin is concerned, dwelt even in Aetolia, and a great many of the Aetolian tribes were Epirots; the Dolopians, and other mountain tribes of Pindus, did not differ from the Epirots. "In the north the Epirots extended even as far as Argyrocastro in Macedonia, and down the Illyrian Aornus."

Theopompus justly called all those tribes Pelasgian; their country contained Dodona, the centre and sanctuary of the Pelasgians, and the seat of the Pelasgian oracle, just as in the East Samothrace was the chief seat of the Pelasgian worship. Eighteen tribes in Epirus, whose names I need not detail, are considered to have belonged to the Pelasgians. They extended even into Macedonia; and the genuine Macedonians, in the narrowest sense of the name, were probably a kindred race; but having subdued Thracian, Illyrian, and Greek tribes, they had become greatly altered, while the Epirots had remained pure and unchanged. One Marsyas, a Macedonian author, according to the Scholia on the Odyssey, called them Siceli, and that with justice. Voss was the first to direct attention to that passage, and I have made use of it. The Siceli in the Odyssey are the Epirots; the Pelasgians in southern Italy, and to the north, even beyond the Tiber, are known under the name of Siculi, under which they also appear in the island of Sicily; but all belong to one and the same race.

The question to what race the Epirots belonged was formerly answered with the greatest confusion, and people felt no uneasiness about it. They were without hesitation declared to be Greeks, although the expression of the ancients is ambiguous. During the latter period, after the downfall of the royal house of Pyrrhus, i. e., in the sixth century after the building of Rome, the Epirots had greatly assimilated themselves to the Greeks, whence, in the latter period of antiquity, they were regarded as Greeks; but this belief is erroneous.

They had, it is true, more Greek civilisation than the Macedonians, but this was only accidental, "and Polybius calls them Greeks only because they had become hellenised; but hellenised Greeks must be well distinguished from real Greeks." On this subject see Cicero's speech for Flaccus. The Lydians, Mysians, and Carians, were all regarded as Greeks; but Cicero expressly states, that the Greeks despised them as complete barbarians. Those nations, however, had become so much hellenised, that the Romans did not hear them speak any other language but Greek: they wrote Greek, their ordinary language and everything else was Greek, and the Romans, therefore, naturally looked upon them as real Greeks. "

Thucydides calls the Epirots barbarians, and both Scylax and Dicaearchus reckoned Amphilochia as the commencement of Greece. Strabo, too, is not ambiguous on this point; and the fact that Herodotus calls Dodona one of the most ancient Greek sanctuaries, points only to a community of religious worship." As Siculi and Pelasgians, the Epirots were not, indeed, foreign to the Greeks, but still more foreign than e. g. the Franks were to the Goths. It may have been difficult for Goths and AngloSaxons to understand each other, but it was still more difficult for the Pelasgians and Greeks. Thucydides ( ?) in speaking of some Aetolian tribes with Epirot names, says that they were barbarians, and that, too, αξυνετωτατοι, while the Mysians and others are called only αξυνετοι. In like manner, the Russians and Bohemians understand each other more easily than the Russians and Poles; and the Russians and Croats, again, understand each other better than Cossacks and Croats. But the fact that the Epirots are called the most unintelligible, shows that there must have been at least a possibility to understand them.

During the Peloponnesian war, all those Epirot tribes existed separately from one another. The Molottians and Thesprotians alone were united under one prince; but the Chaonians and the other tribes were independent, "forming no kind of confederation; still, however, one or other of them predominated. This isolation rendered it possible to establish
there such a large number of Greek colonies; and, moreover, the fact that colonies were established there, is a proof that the Epirots were not Greeks; for we surely cannot suppose that the Greeks founded colonies in their own country."

We find among them the same institutions as in Greece, but in their historical development they always were a couple of centuries behind the Greeks. They still preserved the ancient and simple mode of life, they were Απυργοι, and had no towns surrounded by walls, but lived in open villages containing only an acropolis (fort), into which, in times of war, they carried their property, and their wives and children. But the Acarnanians, whose settlements belong to a later date, dwelt in towns. They were free, and when they had kings, they were the descendants of heroic families, whose ancestors were generally connected with Troy, as we find to have been the case with all the Pelasgian nations; some also traced their origin to the heroes of Greece. Their states were mostly very small, or if not small, at least very weak, and their princes had no authority.

This accounts for the circumstance, that when in the Peloponnesian war all the Epirot tribes were called to arms against Cnemus and the Acarnanians, they were so exceedingly feeble and powerless.At the same period we meet with the guardian of Tharyps, king of the Molottians. The form Molossians, by which we generally designate that people, is quite arbitrary; the double σ has come into use, because the double τ is considered to be Attic; and hence the form Molossi has been introduced; but the name by which the people called themselves, was no doubt Μολοττοι. Aristotle, who cannot be said to employ Attic forms, calls them Μολοττοι; and the Greek grammarian Aelius Dionysius (in Eustathius on Iliad �) informs us that the double τ was a Thessalian form. The royal family of the Molottians, the Aeacidae, traced their origin to Achilles, as the dynasty of the Macedonians traced theirs to Heracles. But there is no historical idea either in the one case or in the other, for Achilles was unknown to the Molottians under that name: they called him Aspetus, and traced their origin to Pyrrhus, the son of Achilles. The two names of the son of Achilles, Pyrrhus and Neoptolemus, shows an amalgamation of two entirely different stories. It cannot but make us smile, to hear that at Troy Pyrrhus assumed the name of Neoptolemus,
and afterwards again took that of Pyrrhus. The stories of Neoptolemus and Pyrrhus were quite different, and refer to different persons, but were afterwards transferred to one. In the Trojan story the son of Achilles never had any other name but Neoptolemus; Euripides was the first that here introduced confusion.

At the time of the Peloponnesian war, great changes were brought about among the Epirots by the above mentioned king Tharyps or Tharybas (Tharytas is a mere slip of a copyist). Tharyps is the Greek form, and Tharybas the Pelasgian. The Pelasgian nations formed the names of Greek towns ending in as from the oblique case, as in Italy, Taras, Tarantum; in Sicily, Acragas, Agrigentum; and Byzas, Byzantium; and we may assert in general, that wherever there occurs a double termination in a name (Greek and Italian), the simpler form is Greek, and the longer one Pelasgian or barbarous.

Tharyps is of the highest importance in the history of those tribes. I am surprised that no one in the eighteenth century has made him the hero of some historico-political novel, such as were written by the Chevalier Ramsay and even by the great Haller (Usong). At the beginning of the war his father died, leaving him as a boy under age; and his guardian sent him to Athens where he was to receive a Greek education. The Athenians, availing themselves of this opportunity, concluded a treaty with the Epirots, which however produced no consequences. In the meantime, the administration of his principality was carried on by his guardian in a faithless manner. When the young barbarian had finished his education and returned to his own country, he introduced among the Molottians, Greek forms, Greek manners, and the language of Greece as far as he could, for his power, like that of all other Molottian kings, was very limited.

I Have already remarked that all the Epirot tribes had institutions, the foundations of which were the same as those of the Greeks. Thus we have mention of γενι among them. Their government was by no means despotie, but a monarchy limited by laws. Aristotle mentions the Molottians along with the Spartans, as an instance of a μοναρχια πατριος; and he says that the power of their kings was as limited as that of the kings of Sparta. By law their power was extremely narrow; but personal influence could change anything, as was the case, e.g., with the kings during the middle ages.

In England, the power of the Norman kings over their barons was limited by law; but as conquerors they set themselves above the law and ruled as sovereigns, not only in an arbitrary, but even in a tyrannical manner. Such also was the case with the Spartan, Epirot, and Molottian kings. Passaro was their capital: there they swore mutually—the king to observe the law, and the people to obey. I do not know whether this was done once for all, or whether it was repeated every year; but I believe that the latter was customary, and that the oath was taken at the πανιγυρεις.

These Molottian kings had as yet no towns, and even in the time of Pyrrhus we find the greatest simplicity in their manners and mode of living. The king's wealth consisted in his flocks, and their shepherds were nobles, as in the Homeric poems. Down to the time of Tharyps, there are no Epirot coins; they are not found till a later period, which is another evidence of the simplicity of their manners.Tharyps, then, was the king who hellenised the Molottians; and this change was communicated also, more or less, to the other Epirot nations. "This is all we know of his reign." He left behind him two sons, Alcetas and Neoptolemus, which names show his anxiety to trace his family to Greek ancestors.

The earlier names are altogether barbarous, but they now claimed to be descended from Achilles: changing their ancestral hero Aspetus, the father of Pyrrhus, into Achilles; and as they adopted the Greek legend of the marriage of Andromache with Pyrrhus, Trojan names also occur: Neoptolemus, Troas, the sister of Pyrrhus, and Deidamia. Hence we must infer that the poems about Troy were not unknown to those nations. Alcetas succeeded his father, but had scarcely anything beyond the title of king. The Greeks at least do not mention him as king, and Xenophon gives him the title υπαρχος.

Though Neibuhr analysis may be counted as outdated, his assertions have not changed even into modern scholarship:

Elizabeth Donnelly Carney, Olympias: mother of Alexander the Great, 2006, p. 140:

"The degree of Hellenization of Molossia outside the royal family is debatable; see Whitley 2001: 400".

The Andromache and Euripidean Tragedy, William Allan, 2003, p. 154

Martin Persson Nilsson, Cults, myths, oracles, and politics in ancient Greece: with two appendices : the Ionian phylae, the phratries, P. �str�m, 1986, p. 105:

The inhabitants were not Greeks 15 and the chief tribes were the Thesprotians, the Chaonians, and the Molossians. Epirus never played any part in history except for the reign of king Pyrrhos, a condottiere who simply used his inherited kingdom as a starting point for his ambitious enterprises. The knowledge of the country reached the Greeks from...During the fifth century BC the Epirotes were drawn into Greek politics and began to be hellenized 16. This brought it about that the genealogy of their royal house was carried back into the Greek mythical age.

If we are to draw an analogy with the Parthians, then we are in good way to strengthen the view that even after being fully Hellenized in terms of culture, non-Greek peoples retained their archaic essence:

How important an element the Greek population of their realm seemed to the Parthian kings we can see by the fact that they claimed to be themselves champions of Hellenism. From the reign of Artabanus I. (128/7-123 B.C.) they bear the epithet of " Philhellen " as a regular part of their title upon the coins. Under the later reigns the Tyche figure (the personification of a Greek city) becomes common as a coin type (Wroth, Coins of Parthia, pp. liii., lxxiv.). The coinage may, of course, give a somewhat one-sided representation of the Parthian kingdom, being specially designed for the commercial class, in which the population of the Greek cities was, we may guess, predominant. The state of things which prevails in modern Afghanistan, where trade is in the hands of a class distinct in race and speech (Persian in this case) from the ruling race of fighters is very probably analogous to that which we should have found in Iran under the Parthians.' That the Parthian court itself was to some extent Hellenized is shown by the story, often adduced, that a Greek company of actors was performing the Bacchae before the king when the head of Crassus was brought in. This single instance need not, it is true, show a Hellenism of any profundity; still it does show that certain parts of Hellenism had become so essential to the lustre of a court that even an Arsacid could not be without them. Artavasdes, king of Armenia (54?-34 B.C.) composed Greek tragedies and histories (Plut. Crass. 33). Then the prestige of the Roman Empire, with its prevailingly Hellenistic culture, must have told powerfully. The Parthian princes were in many cases the children of Greek mothers who had been taken into the royal harems (Plut. Crass. 32). Musa, the queen-mother, whose head appears on the coins of Phraataces (3/2 B.C. - A.D. 4) had been an Italian slave-girl. Many of the Parthian princes resided temporarily, as hostages or refugees, in the Roman Empire; but one notes that the nation at large looked with anything but favour upon too liberal an introduction of foreign manners at the court (Tac. Ann. ii. 2).

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hellenism

**Epirot** · 08-22-2011, 04:19 PM

The case of Aetolians and Acarnanians provide some interesting glimpses that may solve once and forever the question whether Epirotes were Greeks or not. The intrusion of the Illyrians into Aetolia and Acarnania perhaps was the turning point in terms of ethnic identity of both Aetolians and neighboring tribes.

Dumbarton Oaks, Dumbarton Oaks studies, Volume 9, Issue 1, Harvard University Press, 1966, p. 151:

The penetration of the Illyrians into northern Greece in the twelfth century BC led to the decay of the flourishing Mycenaean culture and to a complete upheaval in Greek political history. First, Epirus and Aetolia were engulfed by the wave of the Illyrian invasion.Epirus which had been in greater part Hellenized and whose religious center was the sanctuary of Zeus in Dodona, became once more Illyrian. Aetolia, a flourishing land in Homeric times, lapsed into almost complete barbarism. A great many of the Aetolians crossed the Corinthian Gulf, subjected the native Greek population, and settled in the land which became known as Elis.

The Illyrian intrusion might have been the basic reason why the ancients questioned the "Greek" being of Aetolians, Acarnanians and others.

Str. 10.1.16: Since the Aetolians, Acarnanians, and Athamanians (if these too are to be called Greeks) live to the west of the Thessalians and the Oetaeans, it remains for me to describe these three, in order that I may complete the circuit of Greece; I must also add the islands which lie nearest to Greece and are inhabited by the Greeks, so far as I have not already included them in my description.

ἐπεὶ δὲ τοῖς Θετταλοῖς καὶ Οἰταίοις πρὸς ἑσπέραν Αἰτωλοὶ καὶ Ἀκαρνᾶνές εἰσι καὶ Ἀθαμᾶνες, εἰ χρὴ καὶ τούτους Ἕλληνας εἰπεῖν, λοιπὸν ἐξηγήσασθαι περὶ τούτων, ἵν’ ἔχωμεν τὴν περίοδον ἅπασαν τὴν τῆς Ἑλλάδος� προσθεῖναι δὲ καὶ τὰς νήσους τὰς προσχώρους μάλιστα τῇ Ἑλλάδι καὶ οἰκουμένας ὑπὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ὅσας μὴ περιωδεύκαμεν.

That's why Philip V justly pointed out the non-Greekness of a large portion of Aetolians:

POLYBIUS - 'THE RISE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE', HISTORIES Book XVIII.5

Αἰτωλῶν δ' οὐκ ἀνεκτόν: ποίας δὲ κελεύετέ με" φησὶν " ἐκχωρεῖν Ἑλλάδος καὶ πῶς ἀφορίζετε ταύτην; αὐτῶν γὰρ Αἰτωλῶν οὐκ εἰσὶν Ἕλληνες οἱ πλείους: τὸ γὰρ τῶν Ἀγραῶν ἔθνος καὶ τὸ τῶν Ἀποδωτῶν, ἔτι δὲ τῶν Ἀμφιλόχων, οὐκ ἔστιν Ἑλλάς. ἢ τούτων μὲν παραχωρεῖτέ μοι;"

'What is this Greece which you demand that I should evacuate, and what how do you define Greece?. Certainly most of the Aetolians themselves are not Greeks! The countries of the Agraae, the Apodotea, and the Amphilochians cannot be regarded as Greeks. So do you allow to me to remain in those territories'

Even Titus Livius recorded the same fact in his account where a certain section of the Aetolians were merely excluded from being Greeks:

Liv. 32 34: He went on to express his indignation at the Aetolians ordering him, just as if they were Romans, to evacuate Greece, when they could not tell within what boundaries Greece lies. Even in Aetolia itself the Agraei, the Apodoti and the Amphilochi, who form a considerable part of its population, are not included in Greece

After the meticulous evaluation of the ancient sources, we can postulate with a tolerable safety an Illyrian identity of the Epirotes. Ridgeway put it simple:

The Illyrians and Thracians proper all tattooed, as did the ancient Mycenians; there is evidence to show that there was a large Illyrian element in Epirus, where, as we saw above (p.94), there were many tribes which called themselves Pelasgian…We have seen that there was no sharp line between the speech of Illyrians and Thesprotians or Thessalians|

http://books.google.com/books?id=kXA...eneans&f=false

**Epirot** · 08-22-2011, 07:11 PM

Greek nationalists eager to prove the "Greekness" of Epirus have tried to invoke such a conclusion from the following extract of Herodotus:

Herodotus [VII.176]: ...which wall was built by the Phokians, who were struck with fear because the Thessalians had come from the land of the Thesprotians to settle in the Aiolian land, the same which they now possess.

...ἔδειμαν δὲ Φωκέες τὸ τεῖχος δείσαντες, ἐπεὶ Θεσσαλοὶ ἦλθον ἐκ Θεσπρωτῶν οἰκήσοντες γῆν τὴν Αἰολίδα τήν νῦν ἐκτέαται.

Even though the conquering elite of Thesprotians became fully Hellenized in subsequent years, it cannot be hold that Epirotes were in any way Greeks. Let us see what G. Grote has to say about that matter:

Some notice must be taken of those barbarous or non-Hellenic nations who formed the immediate neighbors of Hellas, west of the range of Pindus, and north of that range which connects Pindus with Olympus, as well as of those other tribes, who, though lying more remote from Hellas proper, were yet brought into relations of traffic or hostility with the Hellenic colonies.

Between the Greeks and these foreign neighbors, the Akarnanians, of whom I have already spoken briefly in my preceding volume, form the proper link of transition. They occupied the territory between the river Achelous, the Ionian sea, and the Ambrakian gulf: they were Greeks, and admitted as such to contend at the Pan-Hellenic games, yet they were also closely connected with the Amphilochi and Agraei, who were not Greeks. In manners, sentiments, and intelligence, they were half-Hellenic and half-Epirotic, like the Italians and the Ozolian Lokrians. Even down to the time of Thucydides, these nations were subdivided into numerous petty communities, lived in unfortified villages, were frequently in the habit of plundering each other, and never permitted themselves to be unarmed : in case of attack, they withdrew their families and their scanty stock, chiefly cattle, to the shelter of difficult mountains or marshes. They were for the most part light-armed, few among them being trained to the panoply of the Grecian hoplite; but they were both brave and skillful in their own mode of warfare, and the sling, in the hands of the Akarnanian, was a weapon of formidable efficiency.

Notwithstanding this state of disunion and insecurity, however, the Akarnanians maintained a loose political league among themselves, and a hill near the Amphilochian Argos, on the shores of the Ambrakian gulf, had been fortified to serve as a judgment-seat, or place of meeting, for the settlement of disputes. And it seems that Stratus and Oeniadae had both become fortified in some measure towards the commencement of the Peloponnesian war. The former, the most considerable township in Akarnania, was situated on the Achelous, rather high up its course, the latter was at the mouth of the river, and was rendered difficult of approach by its inundations. Astakus, Solium, Palaerus, and Alyzia, lay on or near the coast of the Ionian sea, between Oeniadae and Leukas : Phytia, Koronta, Medeon, Limnaea, and Thyrium, were between the southern shore of the Ambrakian gulf and the river Achelous.

The Akarnanians appear to have produced many prophets. They traced up their mythical ancestry, as well as that of their neighbors the Amphilochians, to the most renowned prophetic family among the Grecian heroes; Amphiaraus, with his sons Alkmaeon and Amphilochus : Akarnan, the eponymous hero of the nation, and other eponymous heroes of the separate towns, were supposed to be the sons of Alkmaeon. They are spoken of, together with the Aetolians, as mere rude shepherds, by the lyric poet Alkman, and so they seem to have continued with little alteration until the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, when we hear of them, for the first time, as allies of Athens and as bitter enemies of the Corinthian colonies on their coast. The contact of those colonies, however, and the large spread of Akarnanian accessible coast, could not fail to produce some effect in socializing and improving the people. And it is probable that this effect would have been more sensibly felt, had not the Akarnanians been kept back by the fatal neighborhood of the Aetolians, with whom they were in perpetual feud, a people the most unprincipled and unimprovable of all who bore the Hellenic name, and whose habitual faithlessness stood in marked contrast with the rectitude and steadfastness of the Akarnanian character. It was in order to strengthen the Akarnanians against these rapacious neighbors, that the Macedonian Cassander urged them to consolidate their numerous small townships into a few considerable cities. Partially, at least, the recommendation was carried into effect, so as to aggrandize Stratus and one or two other towns; but in the succeeding century, the town of Leukas seems to lose its original position as a separate Corinthian colony, and to pass into that of chief city of Akarnania, which is lost only by the sentence of the Roman conquerors.

Passing over the borders of Akarnania, we find small nations or tribes not considered as Greeks, but known, from the fourth century BC downwards, under the common name of Epirots. This word signifies properly, inhabitants of a continent, as opposed to those of an island or a peninsula, and came only gradually to be applied by the Greeks as their comprehensive denomination to designate all those diverse tribes, between the Ambrakian gulf on the south and west, Pindus on the east, and the Illyrians and Macedonians to the north and north-east. Of these Epirots, the principal were, the Chaonians, Thesprotians, Kassopians, and Molossians, who occupied the country inland as well as maritime along the Ionian sea, from the Akrokeraunian mountains to the borders of Ambrakia in the interior of the Ambrakian gulf. The Agraeans and Amphilochians dwelt eastward of the last-mentioned gulf, bordering upon Akarnania : the Athamanes, the Tymphaeans, and the Talares, lived along the western skirts and high range of Pindus. Among these various tribes it is difficult to discriminate the semi-Hellenic from the non-Hellenic; for Herodotus considers both Molossians and Thesprotians as Hellenic, and the oracle of Dodona,as well as the Nekyomanteion, or holy cavern for evoking the dead, of Acheron, were both in the territory of the Thesprotians, and both, in the time of the historian, Hellenic. Thucydides, on the other hand, treats both Molossians and Thesprotians as barbaric, and Strabo says the same respecting the Athamanes, whom Plato numbers as Hellenic

As the Epirots were confounded with the Hellenic communities towards the south, so they become blended with the Macedonian and Illyrian tribes towards the north. The Macedonian Orestea, north of the Cambunian mountains and east of Pindus, are called by Hekataeus a Molossian tribe; and Strabo even extends the designation Epirots to the Illyrian Paroraeia and Atintanes, west of Pindus, nearly on the same parallel of latitude with the Orestae. It must be remembered, as observed above, that while the designations Illyrians and Macedonians are properly ethnical, given to denote analogies of language, habits, feeling, and supposed origin, and probably acknowledged by the people themselves, the name Epirots belongs to the Greek language, is given by Greeks alone, and marks nothing except residence on a particular portion of the continent. Theopompus (about 340 BC) reckoned fourteen distinct Epirotic nations, among whom the Molossians and Chaonians were the principal. It is possible that some of these may have been semi-Illyrian, others semi-Macedonian, though all were comprised by him under the common name Epirots.

Of these various tribes, who dwelt between the Akrokeraunian promontory and the Ambrakian gulf, some, at least, appear to have been of ethnical kindred with portions of the inhabitants of southern Italy. There were Chaonians on the gulf of Tarentum, before the arrival of the Greek settlers, as well as in Epirus; we do not find the name Thesprotians in Italy, but we find there a town named Pandosia, and a river named Acheron, the same as among the Epirotic Thesprotians : the ubiquitous name Pelasgian is connected both with one and with the other. This ethnical affinity, remote or near, between Oenotrians and Epirots, which we must accept as a fact without being able to follow it into detail, consists at the same time with the circumstance, that both seem to have been susceptible of Hellenic influences to an unusual degree, and to have been molded, with comparatively little difficulty, into an imperfect Hellenism, like that of the Aetolian and Akarnanians. The Thesprotian conquerors of Thessaly passed in this manner into Thessalian Greeks, and the Amphilochians who inhabited Argos on the Ambrakian gulf, were Hellenized by the reception of Greeks from Ambrakia, though the Amphilochians situated without the city, still remained barbarous in the time of Thucydides : a century afterwards, probably, they would be Hellenized, like the rest, by a longer continuance of the same influences, as happened with the Sikels in Sicily.

To assign the names and exact boundaries of the different tribes inhabiting Epirus, as they stood in the seventh and sixth centuries BC, at the time when the western stream of Grecian colonization was going on, and when the newly established Ambrakiots must have been engaged in subjugating or expelling the prior occupants of their valuable site, is out of our power. We have no information prior to Herodotus and Thucydides, and that which they tell us cannot be safely applied to a time either much earlier or much later than their own. That there was great analogy between the inland Macedonians and the Epirots, from Mount Bermius across the continent to the coast opposite Kerkira, in military equipment, in the fashion of cutting the hair, and in speech, we are apprized by a valuable passage of Strabo; who farther tells us, that many of the tribes spoke two different languages, a fact which at least, proves very close intercommunion, if not a double origin and incorporation.

http://www.third-millennium-library....S-EPIROTS.html

Perhaps this elaboration of Grote is quite long, but it has been excellently provided that Thesprotians got Hellenized long time after they were settled into Thessaly. So the plain fact that Thesprotians were non-Greek prior to their migration in Thessaly strengthen our view about Illyrian being of Epirotic tribes. Hence it would not be surprising if some Greeks questioned the Greekness of Thessalians, as Dicaearchos, for example:

Athenaios VIII 350a: And when he was asked again, according to the account given by Hegesander, which were the greatest barbarians, the Boeotians or the Thessalians he said, ” The Eleans.”

Therefore, if we manage to corroborate with the above mentioned data, some selected quotes of Greek nationalists do not work on their favor anymore!

**Soldier of Macedon** · 08-22-2011, 07:45 PM

Livy, Book 31-7.

Epirus always has been and is today a very small accession to the kingdom of Macedonia.

**Epirot** · 08-23-2011, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post

Livy, Book 31-7: Epirus always has been and is today a very small accession to the kingdom of Macedonia.

Nice quote, SoM! The expression "Epirus always has been...accession to the kingdom of Macedonia" is of great importance because it strengthen even more the prevalent opinion among ancients that Epirus wasn't part of Greece, in any way!

I find as interesting to add in the course of thread the following passage, which at first glance appear to support the non-Greek identity of the Acarnanians:

Jakob Aall Ottesen Larsen, Greek federal states: their institutions and history, Clarendon P., 1968, p. 90:

“Acarnania, like other states of the kind, was the result of conquest by an invading host. The conquest might well have resulted in a mixed population in which any non-Greek elements would be likely to be Illyrian. Actually there are a number of Illyrian place names in Acarnania, but they are relatively few".

**Epirot** · 08-26-2011, 06:51 AM

Greek nationalists give to much credit to the so-called 'Dorian' identity of Epirotes, even though it has never been well defined. For them, "Dorian" element in Epirus is a solid proof to ascribe a Greek character to the Epirotes. I won't bother to comment much about Dorians, since it would be beyond the scope of this thread. Let us keep in mind that Dorian "invasion" has been disputed by the modern scholarship. For instance, the Dorian invasion is called "archaeologically invisible". But this deserve to be treated in another thread. All I want to emphasize is that the differences between proto-Dorians and Illyrians are very thin, since they cohabited in the same region for centuries, which leaves some room to doubt they were affiliated to each other. According to the old literary sources, there were three Dorian tribes: Ὑλλέας καὶ Παμφύλους καὶ Δυμανάτας (Hylleis, Pamphyloi, and Dymanatai). Some scholars have argued about some Illyrian element on them. This seem to be in line with some ancient sources:

22. ILLYRIOI. And after Libyrnians are the Illyrian nation, and the Illyrians live along beside the sea as far as Chaonia by Kerkyra, the island of Alkino�s. And there is a Hellenic city here, which has the name Herakleia, with a harbour. 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 they occupy a peninsula a little lesser than the Peloponnese. And from peninsula parastonion* is upright: Boulinoi live beside this. And Boulinoi are an Illyric nation. And the coastal voyage is of the territory of Boulinoi of a long day up to Nestos river

But, ancient Greeks never ceased to Hellenize the non-Greek traces among them. If they could not assimilate at all, they put Greek endings to the non-Greek names:

68. [1] 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

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.

In the same magical transformation, Alexander became Alexandros, Pyrro as Pyrrhos, etc. This is how Greek propaganda works. It has not changed much to the modern times...

STRABO 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.

Pausanias, Description of Greece 4.3.1

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. This has already formed a part of my account of Tisamenus.2 I will only add the following: When the Dorians assigned Argos to Temenus, Cresphontes asked them for the land of Messenia, in that he was older than Aristodemus.

It should not be neglected the very fact that when Dorians settled in Greece, they were perceived as foreigners by the natives and there was for sure a mutual animosity:

Herodotus Book 1: Clio [56]

�ὦ ξεῖνε Λακεδαιμόνιε, πάλιν χώρεε μηδὲ ἔσιθι ἐς τὸ ἱρόν· οὐ γὰρ θεμιτὸν Δωριεῦσι παριέναι ἐνθαῦτα.� ὁ δὲ εἶπε �ὦ γύναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ Δωριεύς εἰμι ἀλλ᾽ Ἀχαιός.� [4] ὃ μὲν δὴ τῇ κλεηδόνι οὐδὲν χρεώμενος ἐπεχείρησέ τε καὶ τότε πάλιν ἐξέπιπτε μετὰ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων· τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους Ἀθηναῖοι κατέδησαν τὴν ἐπὶ θανάτῳ, ἐν δὲ αὐτοῖσι καὶ Τιμησίθεον τὸν Δελφόν, τοῦ ἔργα χειρῶν τε καὶ λήματος ἔχοιμ᾽ ἂν μέγιστα καταλέξαι

"Lacedemonian stranger, go back and enter not into the temple, for it is not lawful for Dorians to pass in hither." He said: "Woman, I am not a Dorian, but an Achaian." So then, paying no attention to the ominous speech, he made his attempt and then was expelled again with the Lacedemonians; but the rest of the men the Athenians laid in bonds to be put to death, and among them Timesitheos the Delphian, with regard to whom I might mention very great deeds of strength and courage which he performed.

This is more than sufficient to provide that Dorians in the first stage weren't yet genuine Hellenes and it seem very likely they had a strong Illyrian bond, as it was stated in the account of Ps-Scylax. In other words, the Greek claims for Doric Epirus have no legs to stand on.

Greek nationalist in their delusional attempts to falsify the history of Epirus, are keen to quote ritualistically their beloved prophet, N.G.L.Hammond, who has advocated the Hellenism of Epirus and Macedonia. There is no other scholar, whose account is so heavily biased as that of Hammond. Take a brief look to his "comprehensive' studies on Epirus. His bibliography is full of references on modern Greek nationalist historians, which makes the value of his studies less worth than a 1 Greek drachma. Greek academicians trusted Hammond to write the first chapter on "Hellenism" of Epirotes in the nationalist pamphlet "EPIRUS, 4000 years of Greek History and Civilization" which actually is the second volume in the series " Greek Lands in History":

Nicholas G. L. Hammond Emeritus Professor of Greek, University of Bristol; Honorary Fellow of Clare College/Cambridge; Honorary Professor, University of Ioannina

http://www.add.gr/comp/ekdotiki/epirus.htm

Let us take a look into his biography:

1. Soldier fighting with Greeks in WWII

2. Reciever of the Greek Award, 'GREEK ORDER OF THE PHOENIX'

3. 'In postwar period, Hammond returned to Academia ... His SCHOLARSHIP focused on the HISTORY OF ANCIENT MACEDONIA AND EPIRUS '

P.S: It seem obvious that this thread has attracted a wide attention from Greek and Serbian visitors around the world. I am pretty sure they are a bit frustrated but this the price they have to pay for leaving out their illusory world. Indeed this may cause some blurred traumas to them, because they aren't accustomed with the contrary point of view. The funny thing is that they are going to imitate Andreas Kyropoulos's lessons for inferior non-Greeks. That's all they can do for the moment. I do not care about the bullshits of some racists, but let be known that due to the Albanians (who suffer from iodine deficiencies

) they got their independence. Because as General Demetrios Kallergis said:

Excellently said! Greeks were too degraded even to wish for liberty...It was the Albanians and Macedonians and foreigners who fought the Turks. I've a simple question to our Greek audience: to whom you should pay homage? To the degraded Greeks who couldn't even wish for liberty or to the "hyper-iodised" Albanians who made the modern Greece?

**Onur** · 08-26-2011, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Epirot View Post

In the same magical transformation, Alexander became Alexandros, Pyrro as Pyrrhos, etc. This is how Greek propaganda works. It has not changed much to the modern times...

Actually, that was kinda norm in all ancient and medieval writers. They were writing down the foreign names of people from other societies by slightly modifying it according to their own language, to make it suitable and easier to pronounce in their own language. In ancient Greek inscriptions, all the foreign names are grecized.

For example, do you think that the original names of the Persian rulers in Anatolia was really Darius, Cambises, Cyrus??? Nope, those names are just grecized versions of their real Persian names. We get educated with these names in western world cuz we use ancient Greek texts as a source, not Persian ones but i don't think today`s Iranians using the name Cyrus, Darius in their universities.

Excellently said! Greeks were too degraded even to wish for liberty...It was the Albanians and Macedonians and foreigners who fought the Turks. I've a simple question to our Greek audience: to whom you should pay homage? To the degraded Greeks who couldn't even wish for liberty or to the "hyper-iodised" Albanians who made the modern Greece?

Epirot, there has to be some kind of slavery to demand a liberty.

The real Greeks in that times was living in the Istanbul and Izmir shores. They were pretty happy with their lives, sipping their Turkish coffee in their villa`s balcony, by the magnificent view of Istanbul bosphorus or doing commerce with Levantines, Jews in Izmir and living by the gulf of Izmir. They were among the richest people in whole Europe, selling the luxury textiles and agriculture products of whole mediterranean to the western Europe. Also some of them were into the politics of the empire, MEPs of the parliament. Greek clergy of Istanbul was the most privileged ones, controlling whole Balkan, Anatolian christians, dominating and manipulating them without limits. Their dominant role was fully secured as a result of the forced agreements between Turks and philhellene western Europeans.

The so-called Greeks of Morea??? They were just hellenized Albanians, Vlachs, Macedonians etc., semi-assimilated peasants who thought themselves as Greeks due to their allegiance of Greek church. Ofc this was the result of the actions of Greek clergy after French revolution. They were the real slaves of their local feudal lords (feudal system of servage in the empire abolished in 1850s). They were producing the vegetables, fruits and giving them to the Jewish, Greek merchants. Then Jewish, Greek merchants were selling those products to the Italian, French merchants in the ports of Salonika, İzmir and Istanbul.

I challenge anyone who claims that Greeks were under some sort of slavery because thats completely false. Ofc i am talking about the real Greeks in Izmir or Istanbul who spoke byzantine Greek for centuries, not the assimilated peasants of Morea, or the Turkish christians of central Anatolia.

**Soldier of Macedon** · 08-26-2011, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Onur

Their dominant role was fully secured as a result of the forced agreements between Turks and philhellene western Europeans..............hellenized Albanians, Vlachs, Macedonians etc., semi-assimilated peasants who thought themselves as Greeks due to their allegiance of Greek church. Ofc this was the result of the actions of Greek clergy after French revolution.

Their dominant role was secured because the Ottomans willingly made agreements with them during the mid 1700's - and that was before both the philhellenes and the French revolution. Both the Ottomans and Greek-speaking Romaioi clergy had the same reason, which was to control the rebellious Macedonians, Serbs, Bosnians, Wallachians, etc who were constantly providing assistance to Russian and Austrian forces as they sought to evict the Ottomans from the Balkans. As a result of the joint action between Ottomans and Greek-speaking Romaioi clergy, the Latin and Slavic liturgies in churches were forbidden, the process of de-nationalisation among the Balkan peoples commenced, and Greek-speaking peoples became more numerous. The fact is, although inadvertently, the Ottomans actually helped facilitate this process.

Macedonia: Early-Mid Ottoman Period (1500-1800) - Macedonian Truth Forum

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=962&highlight=austria+russia+macedonians

With the assumption of control in the Balkans by the Ottomans, the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia had its widespread power and influence marginalised, while the Patriarchate of Constantinople found itself in a rejuvenated position resulting from its new found friendship with the recently arrived Muslim overlords. With the

**Onur** · 08-26-2011, 08:03 PM

SOM, i was talking about the events of 19th century in my msg above.

Yes, those things has happened but i believe that the Ottoman empire did nothing but continuing what was existed during eastern Roman times from 15th `till 19th century. Also, these Greek speaking clergy was self identified Romans in that times but not Greeks `till 1850s.

You cannot talk about a deliberate denationalization process b4 French revolution cuz b4 1789, there was no nations and no nationalism existed in the world in today`s sense. So, unifying people under religious groups was some kind of norm in that times as it also happened in the western world under Roman church and laters, under anglican churches. The only exception is the reestablishment of Serbian church in 16th century despite the fury of Istanbul patriarchy about it. This has happened because the Bosnian grand vizier Mehmet Sokolovic was so dominant at that time and his Serbian fellows in his hometown requested this favor from him. So, a Bosnian muslim was in fact the prominent person in foundation of the Serbian church.

Again, those rebellious movements you say in Balkans started to happen after French revolution, in early 19th century. Especially after the foundation of Greece in 1820s, this created major distrust of Turks vs the Romaoi clergy but thats when western European philhellenes involved in to the situation and forced Turkish authorities to not eliminate ex-Roman neo-Greek clergy from the power. I was talking about this in my previous above. The filthy games of them was so obvious but Turkish authorities was so powerless to stop them anymore. Their leaders were keeping the commerce of the empire in their hands and nationalistic upheavals was happening in everywhere, keeping the Turkish rulers under constant pressure. Remember that the Greek clergy didn't only involve and manipulate Macedonia but they also did their devilish operations in Anatolia too, which resulted major conflicts between the Greeks and Turks of Blacksea aka Pontians.

**Soldier of Macedon** · 08-26-2011, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Onur View Post

You cannot talk about a deliberate denationalization process b4 French revolution cuz b4 1789, there was no nations and no nationalism existed in the world in today`s sense.

Perhaps I should have used a better term for it, I was referring to the process of forced assimilation by the prohibition of Macedonians, Serbs, Wallachians, etc using their own languages in churches and schools.

Again, those rebellious movements you say in Balkans started to happen after French revolution, in early 19th century.

Only those that were given greater exposure as more people became enlightened with greater information. There were several rebellions that took place prior to the 19th century. Check the link I supplied in my previous post.

**Epirot** · 08-27-2011, 05:50 AM

Even though the primary purpose of this thread is to display the fallacious versions of Greek nationalists about ancient Epirus, I feel I am obliged to make a short digression. There is a tendency among Greek nationalists to label native Albanians of Epirus as recent newcomers from other parts of Albania. This perhaps does not constitute any surprise, but the funny thing is that autochthony by the Greek angle is determined by the political pretensions. If Greeks are going to consider Albanian Epirotes as Greeks (who weren't aware of their Greekness), they will present them as descendants of ancient Molossians, Chaones or Thesprotians. But if they could not assimilate Albanian Epirotes, then they immediately put forward fragile claims that Albanian Epirotes came during Middle ages and they expelled "Greek" natives. Here I'm going to reveal some well-known facts that are ignored by our southern neighbors. Are they aware about thousands of Christian emigrants who got settled after 1913 in the predominantly Albanian region of Epirus? Let us see some reliable sources:

In Turkey, Cham Albanians were accommodated in Istanbul and Bursa. The majority of them were from Ioannina and outlying areas and Preveza.[21] About 16,000 Greek refugees from Asia Minor were settled in Epirus,[56] mainly in the same areas.[57]

# ^ a b c Pentzopoulos, Dimitris (7 October 2002). The Balkan Exchange of Minorities and Its Impact on Greece. London, UK: C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. p. 128. ISBN 978-978-1-85065-674-6. http://books.google.com/?id=lAWKstorJAEC&printsec=. Retrieved 2009-03-31.
# ^ See also: Wikipedia contributors (31 March 2009). Greek refugees. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...of_settlements. Retrieved 2009-03-31.

The Balkan exchange of minorities and its impact on Greece
By Dimitri Pentzopoulos

My note: The Greek element prevailed not because Greeks were previously the majority. Dimitri Pentzopoulos erroneously ascribe a Greek identity to the Orthodox Albanians. When the refugees from Minor Asia got settled, the number of 'Greeks' (read: Christian Orthodoxes) increased to 81%.

Ethnologia Balkanica

...perhaps it would be more correct to say that Greeks (in today's sense of word) stepped a foot for the first time upon Epirus after 1913!!!

P.S: The above documentations are provided by "rex362" on http://illyria.proboards.com.

**Epirot** · 08-27-2011, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Onur View Post

Actually, that was kinda norm in all ancient and medieval writers. They were writing down the foreign names of people from other societies by slightly modifying it according to their own language, to make it suitable and easier to pronounce in their own language. In ancient Greek inscriptions, all the foreign names are grecized.For example, do you think that the original names of the Persian rulers in Anatolia was really Darius, Cambises, Cyrus??? Nope, those names are just grecized versions of their real Persian names. We get educated with these names in western world cuz we use ancient Greek texts as a source, not Persian ones but i don't think today`s Iranians using the name Cyrus, Darius in their universities.

Thanks mate! I think you made some really good points. The Dutch historian Jona Lendering has treated competently that matter. According to him:

...many historical sources are written in Greek, and it was a common practice among Greek historians to hellenize foreign names. For example, the name of the powerful first king of the Persian empire, Kuruš, ought to be transcribed as Kourous or Kouroux in Greek, but became Kyros, because this looks like a Greek word ("Mr. Almighty"). The name that is rendered as Alexandros, which has a perfect Greek etymology, may in fact represent something like Alaxandus, which is not Greek. A related argument that forces us to hesitate is that the Greeks nearly always converted the names of foreign deities.

http://www.livius.org/maa-mam/macedonia/macedonia.html

Greek nationalists pathetically emphasize the Greek etymology of certain names found in Illyria, Paeonia, Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace, Minor Asia, etc. They do not hesitate even to subscribe a Hellenic identity to all these regions. Here is a concise list of Hellenized names of Persian kings (just to make Greek nationalists angry):

Medes (Maad):

Deioces (Daya okko)
Phraortes (Faravartish)
Cyaxares (Hovakh shatara)
Astyages (Ikh tovico)

Achaemenians (Hakhamaneshian):

Cyrus (Sirus or kurosh)
Cambyses (Kambiz or Kambujieh)
Darius (Daryush)
Xerxes (Khashayarshaa)
Artaxerxes (Ardeshir)
Arses (Arshak)

Parthians (Ashkanian):

Arsaces (Arshak)
Priapatios (Fri yapit)
Phraates (Farhad)
Mithradates (Mehrdad)
Artabanus (Ardavan)
Gotarzes (Gudarz)
Sinatruces (Sandruk)
Pacorus (Pakor)
Tiridates (Tirdad)
Vonones (Vanan)
Vologases (Belash)
Osroes (Khusro)

Sassanids (Sasanian):

Ardashir I (Ardeshir Papakan)
Varhran (Bahram)
Narseh (Nersi)
Peroz (Piruz or Firuz)
Shapur II (Shapur Zolaktaf)
Ardashir II (Ardeshir Nikukar)
Yazdgard I (Yazdgerd Bezehkar)
Varhran V (Bahram Gur)
Valkash (Belash)
Zamasp (Jamasb)
Kavad (Ghobad)
Khusro I (Khusro Anushiravan)
Khusro II (Khusro Parviz)
Kavad II (Shiruyeh)
Buran (Puran doght)
Vistahm (Gashtasb)

The "Hellenizing" machine did its greatest job especially during the Hellenistic period, when many cities throughout Mediterranean got Hellenized names:

Except in Egypt, Hellenic influence was nowhere stronger than on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. Greek cities arose there in continuation, or in place, of the older Semitic foundations, and gradually changed the aspect of the country. Such cities were Raphia, Gaza, Ascalon, Azotus, Jabneh, Jaffa, C�sarea, Dor, and Ptolemais. It was especially in eastern Palestine that Hellenism took a firm hold, and the cities of the Decapolis (which seems also to have included Damascus) were the centers of Greek influence. This influence extended in later times over the whole of the district east of the Jordan and of the Sea of Gennesaret, especially inTrachonitis, Batan�a, and Auranitis. The cities in western Palestine were not excepted. Samaria and Panias were at an early time settled by Macedonian colonists. The names of places were Hellenized: "Rabbath-Ammon" to "Philadelphia"; "Armoab" to "Ariopolis"; "Akko" to "Ptolemais." The same occurred with personal names: "Ḥoni" became "Menelaus"; "Joshua" became "Jason" or "Jesus." The Hellenic influence pervaded everything, and even in the very strongholds of Judaism it modified the organization of the state, the laws, and public affairs, art, science, and industry, affecting even the ordinary things of life and the common associations of the people.

A glance at the classes of Greek words which found their way into the Hebrew and the Jewish-Aramaic of the period, as compiled by I. L�w (in S. Krauss, "Lehnw�rter," pp. 623 et seq.), shows this with great clearness. The Hellenists were not confined to the aristocratic class, but were found in all strata of Jewish society (Wellhausen, "I. J. G." p. 194), though the aristocrats naturally profited more from the good-will of Hellenistic rulers than did other classes.

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...#ixzz1WF2EhPF6

Even the Phoenician colony of Qart-ḥadaš took an "elegant" Greek name "Καρχηδών"!!!!

Originally posted by Onur

Epirot, there has to be some kind of slavery to demand a liberty.

You're right. I find pretty hilarious when Greek nationalist historians portray "Tourkokratia" as a time when Greeks were persecuted, denied education, treated as slaves and had their children taken away in order to be turned into janissaries, etc. From all Ottoman subjects, "Greek" speakers were better treated, had many economical and ecclesiastical privileges, etc. I think this is the main reason why most of Greek Ottomans were not sympathizers of Anti-Ottoman uprisings that rose up in Morea and other parts of Rumelia. For instance, the Greek clergy of official church had a hostile stance toward the "revolution" and many of them passed into Ottoman side. This has been stressed out in another thread:

Tormented by History: the case of Greece - Macedonian Truth Forum

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5709

**Onur** · 08-27-2011, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Epirot View Post

Thanks mate! I think you made some really good points.

The "Hellenizing" machine did its greatest job especially during the Hellenistic period, when many cities throughout Mediterranean got Hellenized names:

Np Epirot, i just wanted to point that out but as you said in your msgs, the real fallacy here is not the behavior of ancient Greeks but the modern ones and the philhellenes who claims hellenic identity for Albanians, Macedonians etc. by solely looking at the grecized names written in ancient Greek texts. Thats absurd and it only works for the ignorant minds who doesn't even aware of this fact.

Your quotes of hellenized names are perfect examples. I can also add the so called Greek names of Anatolian cities for that. As you know, philhellenes usually claimed that the names of Anatolian cities are Greek originated. That was the norm `till the archeological discoveries of Hattians, Hittites, Lydians has been made in recent decades. When non-IE language texts of Hattians has been deciphered, we saw that the most of the Anatolian towns exists in 2000 BC with same names but we didn't know that b4 the discoveries. So, we learned that the ancient Greeks only slightly modified these Hattian names to be suitable with their tongue.

What i wanted to say is; both Anatolian and Balkan history is so old, much older than 2000-3000 years and also very diverse, so complicated cuz these places has always been a gateway to Europe from Asia. Giving the only emphasis on "hellenic" identity is a product and result of enlightenment era philosophers of western world after 18th century. I believe that these people was the very first chauvinists in today`s sense. They bended the information and presented to the world according to their own ideologies by insisting to say that whatever is found there is simply Greek, or proto-Greek, or Pre-Greek… in any case, Greek!!! And unfortunately we, the ordinary people of westernized world gets educated according to these ideas. BUT this is not the whole truth as it`s been presented to us but only a portion of it.

**Epirot** · 08-28-2011, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by Onur View Post

That was the norm `till the archeological discoveries of Hattians, Hittites, Lydians has been made in recent decades. When non-IE language texts of Hattians has been deciphered, we saw that the most of the Anatolian towns exists in 2000 BC with same names but we didn't know that b4 the discoveries. So, we learned that the ancient Greeks only slightly modified these Hattian names to be suitable with their tongue.

You just provided a good analogy with the archaeological excavations done in Turkey, which ruined the supposed "Greek" identity of several cities of Hittites, Phrygians, Lydians, etc. I'd prefer to illustrate this by quoting Appian, who has written the most comprehensive detailed account for Illyrians. In a passage of him, we notice the 'Hellenization' procedure of a non-Greek city:

2.6.39: Αὐτὸς δ’ ὁ Πομπήιος τῶν ἀμφ’ αὑτὸν ἤδη τελῶν τὰ μὲν ἔδωκε τοῖς ὑπάτοις προαπάγειν ἐς Ἤπειρον ἐκ Βρεντεσίου, καὶ διέπλευσαν οἵδε αὐτίκα ἀσφαλῶς ἐς Δυρράχιον� ἣν Ἐπίδαμνόν τινες εἶναι νομίζουσι διὰ τοιάνδε ἄγνοιαν. βασιλεὺς τῶν τῇδε βαρβάρων, Ἐπίδαμνος, πόλιν ᾤκισεν ἐπὶ θαλάσσης καὶ ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ προσεῖπεν Ἐπίδαμνον. τούτου θυγατριδοῦς Δύρραχος, νομιζόμενος εἶναι Ποσειδῶνος, ἐπίνειον ᾤκισε τῇ πόλει καὶ Δυρράχιον ὠνόμασε. πολεμουμένῳ δ’ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τῷδε τῷ Δυρράχῳ συνεμάχησεν ὁ Ἡρακλῆς ἐπὶ μέρει τῆς γῆς, ἐξ Ἐρυθείας ἐπανιών� ὅθεν οἱ Δυρράχιοι τὸν Ἡρακλέα, ὡς μερίτην τῆς γῆς, οἰκιστὴν σφῶν τίθενται, οὐκ ἀρνούμενοι μὲν οὐδὲ τὸν Δύρραχον, φιλοτιμούμενοι δ’ ὑπὲρ σφῶν ἐς τὸν Ἡρακλέα μᾶλλον ὡς ἐς θεόν. φασὶ δ’ ἐν τῇ μάχῃ τῇδε Δυρράχου παῖδα Ἰόνιον ὑφ’ Ἡρακλέους ἐξ ἀγνοίας ἀποθανεῖν καὶ τὸν Ἡρακλέα τὸ σῶμα θάψαντα ἐμβαλεῖν ἐς τὸ πέλαγος, ἵνα ἐπώνυμον αὐτοῦ γένοιτο. χρόνῳ δὲ τῆς τε χώρας καὶ πόλεως κατασχεῖν Βρίγας ἐκ Φρυγῶν ἐπανελθόντας καὶ Ταυλαντίους ἐπ’ ἐκείνοις, Ἰλλυρικὸν ἔθνος, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῖς Ταυλαντίοις ἕτερον γένος Ἱλλυριῶν Λιβυρνούς, οἳ τὰ περίοικα νηυσὶ ταχείαις ἐληίζοντο� καὶ Λιβυρνίδας ἐντεῦθεν ἡγοῦνται Ῥωμαῖοι τὰς ναῦς τὰς ταχείας, ὧν ἄρα πρώτων ἐς πεῖραν ἦλθον. οἱ δ’ ἐκ τῶν Λιβυρνῶν ἐξελαθέντες ἀπὸ τοῦ Δυρραχίου Κερκυραίους ἐπαγόμενοι θαλασσοκρατοῦντας ἐξέβαλον τοὺς Λιβυρνούς� καὶ αὐτοῖς οἱ Κερκυραῖοι σφετέρους ἐγκατέμιξαν οἰκήτορας, ὄθεν Ἑλληνικὸν εἶναι δοκεῖ τὸ ἐπίνειον. τὴν δ’ ἐπίκλησιν ὡς οὐκ αἶσιον ἐναλλάξαντες οἱ Κερκυραῖοι καὶ τήνδε ἀπὸ τῆς ἄνω πόλεως Ἐπίδαμνον ἐκάλουν, καὶ Θουκυδίδης οὕτως ὠνόμαζεν� ἐκνικᾷ δ’ ὅμως τὸ ὄνομα, καὶ Δυρράχιον κληίζεται.

2.6.39: The consuls crossed safely to Dyrrachium, which some persons, by reason of the following error, consider the same as Epidamnus. A barbarian king of the region, Epidamnus by name, built a city on the sea-coast and named it after himself. Dyrrachus, the son of his daughter and of Neptune (as is supposed), added a dockyard to it which he named Dyrrachium. When the brothers of this Dyrrachus made war against him, Hercules, who was returning from Erythea, formed an alliance with him for a part of his territory; wherefore the Dyrrachians claim Hercules as their founder because he had a share of their land, not that they repudiate Dyrrachus, but because they pride themselves on Hercules even more as a god. In the battle which took place it is said that Hercules killed Ionius, the son of Dyrrachus, by mistake, and that after performing the funeral rites he threw the body into the sea in order that it might bear his name. [Note] At a later period the Briges, returning from Phrygia, took possession of the city and the surrounding country. They were supplanted by the Taulantii, an Illyrian tribe, who were displaced in their turn by the Liburnians, another Illyrian tribe, who were in the habit of making piratical expeditions against their neighbors, with very swift ships. Hence the Romans call swift ships liburnicœ, because these were the first ones they came in conflict with. The people who had been expelled from Dyrrachium by the Liburnians procured the aid of the Corcyreans, who then ruled the sea, and drove out the Liburnians. The Corcyreans mingled their own colonists with them and thus it came to be considered a Greek port; but the Corcyreans changed its name, because they considered it unpropitious, and called it Epidamnus from the town just above it, and Thucydides gives it that name also. Nevertheless, the former name prevailed finally and it is now called Dyrrachium.

Extensive archaeological excavations have provided that prior to the foundation of "Greek" Dyrrhachion (today Durr�s, the largest Albanian port), there were some proto-urban centers around it, which are attributed to the Illyrian Taulanti and Brygians (from Phrygia). For some period, they were seized by another Illyrian tribe, the famous Liburnians. Later on, they get expelled by the Corcyrians (Greek Corinthian colonists) who established a new colony.

P.S: The above quote of Appian (with its Greek original part), I picked up from an Albanian page!

Epirus, its Illyrian affiliation

Epirus, its Illyrian affiliation

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment