Origins of Ancient Greeks?

[dogukan]

This has always confused me...whenever I read somewhere, it says Dorians came and bla bla bla. But what about earlier?
Who were Ionians? WHen did they come(? What were the main cultures in Greece and what was their difference? When did these differences ended and created the more known ancient Greece? Or did it ever end?
I assume the cities I've travelled in Turkish Aegea were of Ionic ancestry? And the things you'd like to add?
I currently am very much interested in ancient Greek culture due to my travels in their city ruins this summer.


(extra question: Where in TWC is a good place to explain my trips with pictures? )

[I Am Herenow]

Very roughly speaking as I am no expert, one of the first Bronze Age Greek civilisations is the Minoan (c. 2600-1500 B.C.), famous for building the Knossos, having a strong fleet and writing in the as-yet undeciphered Linear A. They were replaced by the Mycenaeans, who were a much more militaristic civilisation, conquering by force rather than trade (and writing in Linear B), who themselves disappeared due to the so-called Dorian invasion c. 1100 B.C., which resulted in a decline in civil structures and literature, and hence a Greek Dark Age. This in turn ended c. 800 B.C. with the re-establishment of pottery and organised society (albeit now ruled more by leading cliques rather than by single rulers) and the invention of the Greek alphabet, thus signalling the start of Greece's Archaic period.

Source.

To answer your second question, this seems to be the holiday snaps forum.

I Am Herenow

[clandestino]

Travelers lodge for pics.
Dorians were Greek tribe which moved from northern Greece to southern Greece, it wasn't some huge migration of total foreigners as people like to imagine it. Ionians were direct descendants of Achaeans, while other Greek tribes were mixture of Dorians and Achaeans. Achaeans came to Greece around 2000 BC ( couple of centuries up or down ). Aegean cost of Anatolia was Eolian at north, Ionian in center and Dorian at south. Differences 'tween the groups were primary linguistical cause they spoke slightly diffferent dialects of Helenic language, cultural differences were more result of different political and social system then result of different origine. For example Doric Corinth was more similar to Ionian Athens then to Doric Sparta due to fact that both Corinth and Athens were trade and craft oriented democratic republics open to connenctions with world while Sparta was autarchic agricultural quasi-monarchy. Differences 'tween these groups were leveled in Helenistic and Roman period when koine language replaced local dialects.

Very roughly speaking as I am no expert, one of the first Bronze Age Greek civilisations is the Minoan (c. 2600-1500 B.C.), famous for building the Knossos, having a strong fleet and writing in the as-yet undeciphered Linear A.

Minoans weren't Greeks, that's why the linear A isn't deciphered.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

I recently read Chadwick's "The Mycenean World" , who was the ulitmate authority on Mycenan civilisation, and he questions the traditional austrian theory of 3 waves of Greek-speaking IndoEuropean warriors marching down into what was to become Greece (Ionians around 2000BC, Aeolians around 1600BC and Dorians around 1100BC). His argument against that is that the almost identical nature of the dialects of the groups at the point of the supposative Dorian invasion can not be reconciled with the differences that should have arisen in the many hundreds of years of seperate evolution. He also states that this 'invasion' has been impossible to trace from an archeological point of view. He claims that the upheavals around 1600BC, which have been traditionally attributed to the coming of the second wave can be also explained as a rising architectural influence from Minoan Crete, meaning that at least Ionians and Aeolians had moved in and settled at the same point. But when it comes to the Dorians he makes no further suggestions leaving his theory incomplete (or maybe he fills the blank pages in some other book/essays?). However, I remeber that at school we were taught the exact words "A more recent, scientifically valid theory argues that the Dorians were a mountainous race, who seized the opportunity to move into the fertile lowlands and expand their power after the decline of the mycenean kingdoms" On the other hand, among the myths and tales delivered to us by the ancient greek literature, there is a very vivid rememberance of the Dorians coming from the north and somewhere around Pindus.
So, if someone knows for sure, let me know.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

What were the main cultures in Greece and what was their difference? When did these differences ended and created the more known ancient Greece? Or did it ever end

Before the comming of the IE settlers, the territory of what was to become Greece was occupied by different peoples sometimes collectively coined as Pelasgians, which is wrong since to the ancients they were only one of the many races of these prehistoric inhabitants (Pelasgians, Leleges, Cares, Minoans etc)
The main cultural difference with the IE invaders was that all these societies were fundamentally agricultural and based upon matrearchical principles.
Respected scholars like Kitto and Chadwick agree that they were assimilated by the IE group, which explains the presence of many non IE words and especially toponyms in the ancient Greek language, as well as the dual nature of many religious festivals and the at first glance unrelated features of many myths of Classical Greece.

[Keravnos]

Before the comming of the IE settlers, the territory of what was to become Greece was occupied by different peoples sometimes collectively coined as Pelasgians, which is wrong since to the ancients they were only one of the many races of these prehistoric inhabitants (Pelasgians, Leleges, Cares, Minoans etc)
The main cultural difference with the IE invaders was that all these societies were fundamentally agricultural and based upon matrearchical principles.
Respected scholars like Kitto and Chadwick agree that they were assimilated by the IE group, which explains the presence of many non IE words and especially toponyms in the ancient Greek language, as well as the dual nature of many religious festivals and the at first glance unrelated features of many myths of Classical Greece.

Korinthos, Tiryntha, Zakynthos and all toponyms with "nth" in Greek language are considered to be Pelasgic words.

Both Ionian Greek and Aiolian Greek are influenced by Pelasgic. Doric Greek however, seem less influenced (and therefore more in tune with common IE language.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Greek_language

coming from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-I...opean_language

along with Proto-illyrian, Proto-Thracian, the two other major Ethnic IE groups which populated the Balkans. Thracians no longer exist but the descendants of Illyrians are present day Albanians.

[Last Roman]

the true origins of the ancient Greeks is still debated among historians. Many have thrown out the old Dorian invasion theory. I wish I had this book on me that goes into greater depth about the theories of Greek origins.

[John I Tzimisces]

the true origins of the ancient Greeks is still debated among historians. Many have thrown out the old Dorian invasion theory. I wish I had this book on me that goes into greater depth about the theories of Greek origins.

There seem to have been, at first, a number of different greek people, of which the Dorians who migrated south either were or were related to, just as the Ionian greeks came from across Aegean from the west coast of Asia minor, and the myceneans who already lived there were or were related to.

I've always figured that the Dorians were one of the many peoples to have been part of that massive period of migrations that characterized the time around 1200-1000 BC, and were some kind of proto-greeks or proto-thracians (or gasp: proto-phrygians...though honestly there really wasn't any difference I think between those guys and thracians.), or some other indo-european group that were "close enough" to Greeks.

The family tree is sorta like this:

Western cultures and slavic and romatic, etc. -------> (evolved from) Roman, Greek, Iranian, Steppe people's language -------> Greek and Steppes -------> A group of people living to the east of the Black sea. Most words in even modern languages can be traced back to this group of people from about 5000 yrs ago. Look how similar the word for 'father' is in many languages in europe for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia...tic_comparison
A handy table with cognates amongst indo-european languages, modern and ancient.

[Last Roman]

There seem to have been, at first, a number of different greek people, of which the Dorians who migrated south either were or were related to, just as the Ionian greeks came from across Aegean from the west coast of Asia minor, and the myceneans who already lived there were or were related to.

I've always figured that the Dorians were one of the many peoples to have been part of that massive period of migrations that characterized the time around 1200-1000 BC, and were some kind of proto-greeks or proto-thracians (or gasp: proto-phrygians...though honestly there really wasn't any difference I think between those guys and thracians.), or some other indo-european group that were "close enough" to Greeks.

this very well may be a the case, migrations over a long period of time, rather than some huge invasion by a single set of peoples.

[SonOfAlexander]

The family tree is sorta like this:

Western cultures and slavic and romatic, etc. -------> (evolved from) Roman, Greek, Iranian, Steppe people's language -------> Greek and Steppes -------> A group of people living to the east of the Black sea. Most words in even modern languages can be traced back to this group of people from about 5000 yrs ago. Look how similar the word for 'father' is in many languages in europe for example.

[neoptolemos]

My question is:
Could we say that the term "Greek" was applied to a number of tribes similar to the term Thracians or Illyrians?

[John I Tzimisces]

My question is:
Could we say that the term "Greek" was applied to a number of tribes similar to the term Thracians or Illyrians?

In a way, but perhaps more disparate than the Thracians and Illyrians would be (not that we know a whole lot about the thracian and illyrian languages). I mean, for instance, just look at the difference in dialects spoken by people who identified themselves as Hellenes at a much later period.

I think the various groups, lets say Mycenaeans, Dorians, and Ionians probably spoke similar languages, and when the migration period ended, due to their close proximity and mixing and assimilation (between the migrating tribes, the "pelasgians", and mycenaeans) and all sorts of things, you got classical greek and all the different dialects based on who settled where.

It might be a little misleading to call these tribes "Greek" because I'm not so sure such a term existed at the time, but they ultimately became Greeks as they and we would call them.

[removeduser_487563287433]

John, it is worth noting that the Mycenaean era Greeks that (we suspect) settled around the Eastern Aegean following the Bronze Age collapse spoke languages like Luwian, Lydian, Lycian and semitic languages before they adopted Greek languages in the classical age. Use of Greek was lost by these people - which is hardly surprising when you remember that even in mainland Greece the Bronze Age collapse caused the loss of the Greek writing script.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

Where's the evidence to suggest that? Homer was supossedly from somewhere around eastern Aegean, so was Thales, Bias, Pythagoras and a dozen of other famous pre-classical Greeks

[John I Tzimisces]

John, it is worth noting that the Mycenaean era Greeks that (we suspect) settled around the Eastern Aegean following the Bronze Age collapse spoke languages like Luwian, Lydian, Lycian and semitic languages before they adopted Greek languages in the classical age. Use of Greek was lost by these people - which is hardly surprising when you remember that even in mainland Greece the Bronze Age collapse caused the loss of the Greek writing script.

Doesn't that (myceneans speaking non-greek abroad) point more to the widespread destruction of civilizations in the period (by way of their being assimilated) rather than anything relating to how the myceneans might have related to, say, the dorians?


Also, I think dogu was asking about these various anatolian peoples who were not greek (though obviously most of them ultimately ended up embracing hellenism to one point or another after alexander's bit)...well, all I can tell you about them, is the Phrygians, who, according to Herodotus, were related to the Thracians, migrating eastwards, and ultimately were the progenitors of the Armenians who apparently wore the same hats or something else equally pointless. Interesting historical reference that could perhaps be referring to history being passed down by word of mouth like whatever stories inspired the authors of the homeric works.

I would suppose the other people living in Asia minor are a mix of indo-european speaking people and people who predated the spread of indo-european languages (like those whacky caucasian languages. Honestly, I forget where Hurrian and Luwian fit in. Go ask ferrets, I'm on vacation dagnabbit.)

[removeduser_487563287433]

Doesn't that (myceneans speaking non-greek abroad) point more to the widespread destruction of civilizations in the period (by way of their being assimilated) rather than anything relating to how the myceneans might have related to, say, the dorians?

Well, that's just essentially an impossible question to answer.

Also, I think dogu was asking about these various anatolian peoples who were not greek (though obviously most of them ultimately ended up embracing hellenism to one point or another after alexander's bit)...well, all I can tell you about them, is the Phrygians, who, according to Herodotus, were related to the Thracians, migrating eastwards, and ultimately were the progenitors of the Armenians who apparently wore the same hats or something else equally pointless. Interesting historical reference that could perhaps be referring to history being passed down by word of mouth like whatever stories inspired the authors of the homeric works.

I would suppose the other people living in Asia minor are a mix of indo-european speaking people and people who predated the spread of indo-european languages (like those whacky caucasian languages. Honestly, I forget where Hurrian and Luwian fit in. Go ask ferrets, I'm on vacation dagnabbit.)

Anatolian is a branch of the Indo-European language family. It went extinct in the hellenistic period, and included Hittite, Luwian (the two biggest languages, spoken in the Hittite Empire and Troy), Lycian, Lydian and Carian.

The Hurrians were non-Indo-Europeans. Their language is a matter of debate, as unlike their Canaanite neighbours it was not semitic, either. As you've already guessed, some scholars make some convincing arguments for it being linked to Caucasian languages.

I have another question...who are these Carians, Lydians, Phyrgians? Are they Greek?

Absolutely not. They were Anatolian cultures that developed out of ancient civilisations such as Arzawa, Wilusia and Lukka (Lukka - Lydia/Lycia, Wilusia - Ilium).

thanks...this stuff has always confused me. A few weeks ago I was around the Aegean coast and visited certain palces. (I was in Bodrum mostly) In every place I saw the names of the Carians which were an indigenous tribe. But the stuff I saw was totally Hellenic, including the Mausseleon. So it confused me...

If you were a local Satrap ruling many hundreds of miles away from Persia you do not tend to make a great success of things but imposing Persian culture on the people, especially, if you are like Mausolus, you are not a Persian but a native Carian in a time when hellenisation was beginning to pick up pace.

And besides, if you saw "Carian" architecture, would you recognise it?

Greeks started to colonise the east asia minor around 1300 bc at the early mycenean era the same time that minoans created trade stations in the entire mediteranean and beyond it!

It's almost certainly earlier. Miletus appears to be under Greek control at the height of the Hittite Empire, although it definitely changed hands. But we know for certain that Greeks were in Anatolia in the Bronze Age.

In ancient time diplomatic relations and trade conections were not a fiction that we want to believe...

You'd have to have a complete ignorance of the matter to believe this. The late Bronze Age civilisations were incredibly sophisticated, with flourishing scholarship, incredibly complex trade links stretching from one end of Eurasia to the other, established diplomatic procedure. The Bronze Age collapse was a far more disasterous catastrophe for human civilisation than the Fall of Rome.

Lydians (Croisos) and many other empires and kingdoms had full diplomatic relations with the greek empires and kingdoms(letters were found about border pacts and exchange of captives or rebels)...

Being Neo-Hittite kingdoms they had thousands of years of diplomatic connections to call on.

Where's the evidence to suggest that? Homer was supossedly from somewhere around eastern Aegean, so was Thales, Bias, Pythagoras and a dozen of other famous pre-classical Greeks

All of them living many centuries after the Bronze Age collapse, which appears to see widespread Mycenean migration to places like Cicilia and Palestine, where they loose the use of Greek. The evidence is the widespread Mycenaean pottery that was locally produced in these areas and linguistic evidence. The Phoenicians know the "Sea People" in Cicilia as ADNA, which is (trust me) linguistically linked to the late Hittite word for the Greeks Ahhiya (Achaeans). Phillistine is possibly linked to Greek and Sea People names - Pelest.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

All of them living many centuries after the Bronze Age collapse, which appears to see widespread Mycenean migration to places like Cicilia and Palestine, where they loose the use of Greek. The evidence is the widespread Mycenaean pottery that was locally produced in these areas and linguistic evidence. The Phoenicians know the "Sea People" in Cicilia as ADNA, which is (trust me) linguistically linked to the late Hittite word for the Greeks Ahhiya (Achaeans). Phillistine is possibly linked to Greek and Sea People names - Pelest.

The term classical age refers to the period between 479-323BC, does it not?
Anyway, regarding the presence of Myceneans to Cilicia and Palestine, wouldn't you think that more evidence is needed to verify it? The pottery fragments could be very much products of trade and if it can be indeed proven that they were produced locally (some ingredient only to be found in those areas?), it still doesn't imply widespread migration. There were Greek colonies in those areas in the later eras as well, but very few in numbers and not particularly important. Also, does the linguistic evidence consist of just this couple of names you mentioned? That could be very much misleading. What if one applies the same lenience to the records of the Persian Empire desrcibing the 5th century Macedonians as Yauna Takabara? He would be wrong to assume that they were Ionians. So, how can you argue for the loss of Greek, when it hasn't even been concluded that Myceneans settled there?

[removeduser_487563287433]

The term classical age refers to the period between 479-323BC, does it not?

In that ball park. I'm talking about 1200BC.

Anyway, regarding the presence of Myceneans to Cilicia and Palestine, wouldn't you think that more evidence is needed to verify it?

More evidence is needed to verify literally everything we know about the Bronze Age. We don't know the names of the civilisations, the locations of mentioned areas, the timeline of events, or how it all ended.

But I am referring to some generally accepted theories.

The pottery fragments could be very much products of trade and if it can be indeed proven that they were produced locally (some ingredient only to be found in those areas?), it still doesn't imply widespread migration.

Yeah, you can prove they were produced locally. Four of the five Phillistine cities are simply awash with locally produced Late Helladic pottery. What's your explanation for this, then?

There were Greek colonies in those areas in the later eras as well, but very few in numbers and not particularly important.

There were no Greek colonies or emporiums present in the Levant at the time we are talking about.

Also, does the linguistic evidence consist of just this couple of names you mentioned? That could be very much misleading. What if one applies the same lenience to the records of the Persian Empire desrcibing the 5th century Macedonians as Yauna Takabara? He would be wrong to assume that they were Ionians. So, how can you argue for the loss of Greek, when it hasn't even been concluded that Myceneans settled there?

Just because you've decided that Myceneans didn't settle there doesn't mean anybody else has. There is more linguistic evidence, including that it appears the early Phillistines did not speak a semitic language, that Phillistine names were of non-semitic origins and possible inscriptions to Mycenaean goddesses.

[Keravnos]

John, it is worth noting that the Mycenaean era Greeks that (we suspect) settled around the Eastern Aegean following the Bronze Age collapse spoke languages like Luwian, Lydian, Lycian and semitic languages before they adopted Greek languages in the classical age. Use of Greek was lost by these people - which is hardly surprising when you remember that even in mainland Greece the Bronze Age collapse caused the loss of the Greek writing script.

Nope, They spoke Greek all along. The loss of a script, doesn't mean they lost their languge. They just changed the letters they wrote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Greek_language

Thing is, there is a dispute of their origin. I believe that even as there was some inter-change of ideas and words with the Anatolian civilizations, that the language of the Mycenaeans was that of the IndoEuropeans settling into the Balkans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_B
Linear B was a Greek language.
then they lost the "technology" of writing during to all sorts of incursion of northern peoples.

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

Then they started writing Greek again, using a new script.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet

but with a difference. They used vowels too, whereas Phoenicians didn't. (their use was implied, but not written)

[removeduser_487563287433]

Nope, They spoke Greek all along. The loss of a script, doesn't mean they lost their languge. They just changed the letters they wrote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Greek_language

Read more carefully. I said that many of the Myceneans that fled Greece and settled in Anatolia and the Near East lost the use of Greek and took up the local languages. ie. Phillistines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_B
Linear B was a Greek language.
then they lost the "technology" of writing during to all sorts of incursion of northern peoples.

It is by no means certain as to why the Greeks lost the use of writing.

Then they started writing Greek again, using a new script.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet

but with a difference. They used vowels too, whereas Phoenicians didn't. (their use was implied, but not written)

Your speaking to somebody who has already written Phoenician in this thread.