Eupedia / Maciamo : Y-DNA haplogroups of ancient civilizations


http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25163

The ancient Egyptians: Based on the modern population of Egypt, and removing the foreign elements, it is reasonable to assume that the ancient Egyptians belonged primarily to haplogroups E1b1b and T. Nowadays about half of the Egyptian paternal lines could be descended from invaders, notably from the Arabic peninsula (hg J1, about 1/3 of the population), but also from Greece, Anatolia and Persia.

The ancient Slavs: Present-day Eastern Slavs are descended from the ancient Kurgan culture of the Eurasian steppes. The Scythians were the branch of R1a that remained in the steppes of from whom modern Russians are descended (along with other haplogroups). Slavic Europeans belonged to haplogroup R1a and I2. Southern Slavs have a much higher proportion of I2 (notably in the Croatia). Eastern Europeans from the Danubian basin and the Balkans have also inherited a sizeable percentage of haplogroup E (and some G and T) from the expansion Neolithic farmers that started from northern Greece 7,000 years ago (Linear Pottery culture).

Ancient Anatolians: Southern Anatolia was colonised early by Neolithic farmers from the Near East (E + J2). The Indo-European invasions brought the Hittites (1750 BCE), the Lydians and Lycians (1450 BCE) and the Proto-Armenians (1200 BCE). All were probably R1b, considering the high percentage of R1b in the regions they settled. R1b Indo-Europeans are thought to have originated on the north-eastern shores of the Black Sea, just north of the Caucasus. They could have invaded northern Anatolia by crossing the Caucasus, sailing across the sea, or going around via the steppes through the Bosphorus.
Later R1b were possibly (part of) the Sea Peoples that ravaged the ancient Near Eastern civilizations, from Greece to Egypt. Their advance military technology and sea-based culture make of them very good candidates.
The Phrygians arrived in northern Anatolia after 1200 BCE, and were probably an offshoot from the Thracians (so R1a).
The Cimmerians are probably the last wave of migration (around 700 BCE) from the R1b homeland. They are said to have be expelled from Anatolia and moved to Europe, where they joined the other R1b people. Germanic and Celtic people both claim (partial) Cimmerian ancestry.

Turkic languages originated in Mongolia nearly 2000 years ago. Turkish people are mostly descendants of the ancient Anatolian population. Turkish culture is a melting pot that has absorbed Central Asian, Middle Eastern and European (especially Greek) cultural elements.

The ancient proto-Germanic people: The three main haplogroups associated with Germanic people are I1, I2b1 and R1b-U106. The latter is an old pre-Celtic branch of R1b mostly found around Frisia. These people are thought to have mixed with I1 people to form the ancient Germanic culture. In Scandinavia R1a is also quite common, although its presence could have predated a Germanic expansion from northern Germany, Denmark and southern Sweden.

Romans, Celts and Germans: Celtic, Italic and Germanic people are all descended from the same R1b1b2 stock. They split north of the Alps.
The Italic branch went south and mixed with the Terramare people who were I2a, G2a and E-V13. Northern Italians have more Indo-European Celto-Italic blood, while southern Italian have more indigenous blood (the highest being Sardinia, then Basilicata).
The Germanic branch moved north and mixed with the indigenous I1 and I2b people, who had already mixed with R1a migrants from the Corded Ware (Battle Axe) culture. The new hybrid Germanic people retained the highest percentage of aboriginal haplogroup I.
Celtic people split in several groups : the Brythonic went to Britain and Ireland, the Gaulish to France, the Iberian to Spain and Portugal, and the Alpine remained around Austria, Switzerland, southern Germany, Eastern France and Belgium. The Iberian and Gaulish groups mixed with I2b, I2a and E people, the Alpine with I2b and E, and the Brythonic just with I2b people.
It is likely that the language of the aboriginal Europeans influenced the various Celtic, Italic and Germanic dialects. Germanic languages diverted the most from the original European R1b language because it assimilated a very large part of aborigines.
From about 700 BCE, the Etruscans settled around Tuscany and the Greeks in southern Italy. Etruscans probably came from Palestine and brought haplogroups J1, J2 and E with them. The Greeks in Italy were Doric and brought J2, E, G2a and probably more R1b (see above). The Romans progressively absorbed the Etruscans and Italian Greeks and mixed with them. By the time of Julius Caesar Roman citizens were probably composed of 45% of R1b, 20% of J, 15% of E, 15% of G2a and 5% of I2a.

hpgr

Ancient Greeks : Pelasgians (pre-Minoan Greeks, or Helladic Greeks) belonged to an admixture of I, E-V13, T and G2a. E-V13 and T probably arrived in Greece from the Levant (and ultimately from Egypt, hence the small percentage of T) in the early Neolithic, 8,500 years ago. G2a came from the Caucasus approximately 6,000 years ago as herders of sheep and goats (and early miners ?).
Minoan Greeks migrated from Mesopotamia via Anatolia. They were mostly J2 people, but probably had some E too.
Mycenaean
Greeks arrived around 3,600 years ago from the Ukrainian steppes. They were an Indo-European people belonging to R1a. So were the Macedonians and the Thracians (hence the higher density of R1a in northern Greece).
Greece was invaded by the Dorians around 1200 BCE. Nobody knows who they were or where they came from, but the high percentage of R1b in the regions where they settled (Peloponese, Crete) strongly suggest that they were R1b people. The events are linked to the Sea Peoples (see below), who were probably R1b people from the north-east of the Black Sea, or early Celts from central Europe.
Greek historians sometimes mention that the Dorians were the descendants of the Trojans who came back to avenge their ancestors. The Trojans were an Indo-European people related to the R1b Hittites (see below). This would also explain why there is about the same percentage of R1b and R1a in modern Greece. Each correspond to a different wave of Indo-European invader. They only make up 12% of the population (each) because the Neolithic farmers (especially E and J2) were already well-established and numerous by that time.

By definition, the Pelasgians are the autochthonous, native inhabitants of Mesolithic Greece. They did not speak Greek, but their language may have contributed to a few loan words in ancient Greek. Modern Greece is a melting pot. The Pelasgians were first there probably haplogroup I2, then came early farmers from the Near East (E1b1b and J2), herders from the Caucasus and Anatolia (G2), then the Mycenaeans (I would think R1a), the Dorians (possibly R1b) and others. Ancient Greek language and religion is surely an admixture of all this, although the Indo-European component is stronger than the rest. I suppose that this is because the Mycenaeans and Dorians were the last invaders, whose language and culture eventually stuck, after some adaptation to local idiosyncrasies.

The Hungarians : Modern Hungarians are virtually undistinguishable from their Austrian and Slovak neighbours in terms of Y-chromosome haplogroups. But Hungary is a notoriously difficult country for Y-DNA proportions. Percentages tend to vary widely from one study to another, depending on the regional populations sampled. Some studies have found over 60% of R1a in Hungary, although the average if half that figure. Some villages have a small percentage of CentralNorth Asian haplogroups N, Q or C, but they are otherwise quite rare. Interestingly neighbouring countries like Austria, Slovakia and Ukraine appear to have more C, Q and N than Hungary.

Hungary has a peculiar history due to its geography – a vast plain surrounded by mountains on every side (the Alps and the Carpathians). In Neolithic times, it was at the centre of the Danubian cultures, which was composed of I2 hunter-gatherers (soon converted to farming) and E-V13 farmers from Thessaly. Then came the Slavic invasion (around 3,000 BCE), followed by the Proto-Italo-Celts and Alpine Celts (2,000 BCE to 200 BCE), who brought respectively R1a and R1b to the region.

Hungary was named after the Huns, who invaded Europe from 370 CE and partly settled in the Pannonian plain (now known as Hungarian plain). It isn’t sure where the Huns came from, but it is generally believed that they descended from the Xiongnu peoples of Mongolia. They were a confederation and included various ethnic group under Hunnic leadership. It is likely that ‘Huns’ were many R1a peoples, e.g. Scythians, from the Eurasian Steppe. The Huns themselves may have been an admixture of haplogroup Q and C. However less than 2% of the modern population belong to Q and C combined.

The Avar khaganane was centered in and around the present-day Hungarian city of Debrecen and their presence in the Carpathian Basin lasted several centuries until 800 AD. The presence of the Huns, even when compared with that of Avars, was insignificant in terms of the time spent there. The territory was called Pannonia since the Roman times and long after the fall of the empire. The name Hungary is much younger and comes from the word On Ogur the Bulgarians gave to the 10 (?) Asian tribes that invaded the Carpathian Basin in 896 AD. As for the Mongol invasion of 1242, it lasted only 1 or 2 years, which is too short, in my opinion, to leave any genetic trace in the population, though I agree that the country, especially the plains probably inhabited by the Magyars, was almost depopulated. The highlands Romania, Slovakia, offered better refuge to the locals Vlachs, Slavs, so their population was largely preserved. The Avars were steppe people from Central Asia, so they must have been predominantly R1a, with maybe some J2, R1b and/or C3.

The next invaders were the Magyar, a Finno-Ugric people who arrived in Europe in the 9th century, and settled in Hungary in the 10th. Hungarian language is actually a descendant of Magyar, not Hunnic, despite the misleading name in “Hun-“. The Magyar came from Central Asia, and are related to the modern Bashkirs of Russia.

According to paper by Russian geneticists – “Structure of gene pool of Bashkir subpopulations” Bashkirs have (N=471) 47% R1b (35% R1b1b2, 13% R1b1b1), 26% R1a1, 17% N1c, C haplogroup occurs in only 2.3% of Bashkir sample. The Bashkirs were conquered by the Mongols, which may account for all the haplogroup C. In fact, the presence of C in Europe is usually attributed exclusively to the Mongols, and C is almost non-existent in Hungary anyway. There are significant differences in haplogroup frequencies between subpopulations of Bashkirs. This indicate that each could have a different origin. I managed to find the original study by Lobov et al. (in Russian only). Indeed the percentages vary widely according to the subpopulation. the Bashkirs total is 17% of N1c, 26% of R1a, 13% of R1b1b1, 35% of R1b1b2. R1b1b2 (M269) is much more common the Baymaksky district of Bashkortostan (81%) and the Perm region (84%), but otherwise osciliates between 7% and 23%. R1b1b1 (M73) reaches an amazing 55% in the Abzelilovsky district, but otherwise does not exceed 2%. N1c is very high in East Orenburg (65%) and Sterlibashevsky (54%), moderate in Samara & Saratov (20%) and low elsewhere (3% to 7%). Samara & Saratov is the only Bashkir region with a reasonable amount of haplogroup C (17%) and O (6%). But overall it is R1a that is the most common, reaching 38% in Sterlibashevsky district, 40% in West Orenburg, and 48% in Saratov & Samara.

A study compared the Y-chromosome of the Madjar tribe from Kazakhstan to the Magyars of Hungary, and found that some G lineages were related. The article doesn’t specify the subcalde, but G1 is the dominant strain in Kazakhstan, and is also found in Hungary (but normally not elsewhere in Europe).

Another study compared the Y-DNA of Hungarians with other Finno-Ugric-speaking populations in order to understand why modern Hungarians have so little of the typical Uralic haplogroup N1c. They tested a few individuals from a 10th-century cemetery found out that half of the individuals belonged to N1c. The sample was small, and maybe “pure” Magyar, but it nonetheless suggests that the original Magyar had much more N1c than modern Hungarians.

The Magyar population is thought to have suffered considerably from the 13th-century Mongol invasion of Europe, and from the 16th-century war against the Ottomans. From all this can be deduced that the original Magyars were an admixture of N1c and R1a (predominant), with some G1, and maybe some R1b. As haplogroup Q is neither associated with the Magyars not with the Mongols, it must be either be of Hunnic origin, or from other Asian tribes part of the various invaders from the steppes.

JPtoEurope The first “steppe peoples” in Eurasia are not Asiatics (racially speaking), but are the Europeans peoples (always racially speaking). The lasts representative of those Europeans peoples in the Eurasia steppes, are the Scythes. The first main people to have reversed this West > East flow in the Eurasia steppe in East > West flow, is a people interbreeding between Europeans and Asiatics… named the Turcs. And more recently and after 1400 years of Asiatics (turko-mongolians) domination in steppes, the flow is again reversed West to the East, for the Europeans, about the seventeenth century, with the Russian conquests, right down Pacific.

According to anthropologist David Anthony in his book The Horse, The Wheel, and Language, steppe people of the Bug-Dniester and later Yamna culture were all low-skulled, very wide-faced Proto-Europoids (mixed European and Mongoloid traits). He also mentions that the early Yamna settlers in the Danube basin (3000-2600 BCE), in places like Bulgaria, Serbia and Hungary, were still the same Proto-Europoids, contrasting neatly with the gracile, high-skulled and narrow-faced people of “Old Europe”. David Anthony is a well-respected specialist of Indo-European archaeology. As he is first and foremost a professor of anthropology, there is no doubt he can recognise anthropological features from skeletons.

LeBrok Hungary is predominantly R1a and they don’t speak Slavic. They speak Magyar that came, I guess, with N, but N now is negligible in Hungary.

how yes no Serbs are supposed to be Slavic tribe, but they have very little R1a (14.5%)

Macedonia_and_the_Aegean_World_c.200[5]

DejaVu E1b1b – Albania: 21.6% & 25.5% (2 tests), -Kosovo: 47.4%,  -Greece: 20.8%, 23.8% & 31.6% (3 tests), -Macedonia (FYROM): 24.1%, -Bulgaria: 20.7%, -Serbia: 21.2%, -Egypt: 43.5%. The Pelasgian founding of Athens is also noted by Plutarch inTheseus 12, and Ovid in Metamorphosis vii.402ff. According to Herodotus vii.91, the Pelasgians also founded Thebes in Europe. Pausanias, noted that “The Arcadians make mention of Pelasgus as the first person who existed in their country. From this king the whole region took the name Pilasgia”. Hopper noted that the Pelasgians founded Attica. The earliest Greek alphabet was made by the Pelasgians, it was lost and later reintroduced by Kadmus to Boeotia. Another Pelasgian, Evander of Arcadia introduced writing to the Italians. This script was used to make the first fifteen characters of the Latin script according to Pliny and Plutarch. The Egyptians established many colonies in ancient Europe. The Egyptians were also called Danaans in Greek history. By 1200 BC, much of the Mycenae civilization was under the control the Achaeans. The Achaeans later founded other city-states in Greece. After conquering the Mycenaeans, the Achaeans formed the Greek states of Peloponnesus. Their major cities: Mycenae and Tiryns in Argolis, and Pylos Messenia were originally founded by other Pelasgian groups.

The ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish historians, geographers, and orators, speak of the Macedonians as distinct nation, separate from their Greek, Thracian, and Illyrian neighbors. They are clear that Macedonia was never part of Greece and that the Macedonians conquered Greece, Thrace, and Illyria, and kept the Greeks, Thracians, and Illyrians enslaved, until Rome defeated the Macedonian armies and turned the country into its first province in 168 BC. The assertion of those modern historians that propagate that the Macedonians “were Greeks” which have “united” Greece, is absurd and is completely unsupported by the words of the ancients who clearly considered Greece subjected by the Macedonian foreigners. The Macedonians garrisoned the Greek cities (like the Thracian and Illyrian cities) to enforce their occupation, and later used the Greeks (along with equal numbers of the Thracians and Illyrians) for their conquest of Persia. The ancient Greeks did not regard the Macedonians as Greeks, nor the Macedonians regarded themselves to be Greek. They were proud of their Macedonian nationality and way of life, and looked down upon the Greeks and with contempt. The Greeks called them barbarians, along with the Persians, Illyrians, and Thracians, a label that they attributed to all non-Greeks who neither spoke nor understood the Greek language. Alexander’s Macedonian Army was not a “Greek army” as some modern writers have erroneously claimed, nor the Macedonian conquest of Asia was a “Greek conquest”. The fact is that not one ancient writer has called the Macedonian empire “Greek” or the Macedonian army and conquest “Greek”, but specifically Macedonian. When Rome clashed with Macedonia, the Macedonians were ordered by the Romans to evacuate from the whole of Greece and withdraw to Macedonia. They were hated by the Greeks ever since Philip II defeated the Greeks at Chaeronea in 338 BC and brought Greece to its kneel, and the Greeks fought fiercely, first on the side of the Persians and later on the side of the Romans to expel the Macedonians from their country. Too late would they realize that the Macedonian occupation would only be replaced by the Roman. In between the Greeks fought many unsuccessful wars against the Macedonians to drive them out of Greece, among which the Lamian War is the most famous. It should be noted that the Lamian War was triggered by the death of Alexander the Great, which encouraged the Greeks to rebel.

Ancient_Tribes_thumb[6]

About Alex Imreh

http://www.aleximreh.ro http://www.facebook.com/alex.imreh 0742-669918
This entry was posted in ethnogenesis, Old Europe and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Eupedia / Maciamo : Y-DNA haplogroups of ancient civilizations

  1. history buff says:

    “The ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish historians, geographers, and orators, speak of the Macedonians as distinct nation, separate from their Greek,”

    Good article but the line above is utter nonsense. For one, Greece was not a nation to begin with. It was a fractured collection of Kingdoms and democracies. Secondly, the vast majority of Greek, Roman, and Jewish historians identify Macedonians as Greeks (e.g. Jewish people to this day celebrate the Maccabees revolt during Hanukkah as a defeat against Greeks).

    This is attested to be the fact ancient Macedonians spread Koine Greek across their empire (rather than a local Macedonia Greek dialect some claim as a language), ancient Greek gods, and Greek culture Philip, Alexander the Great’s father, is the one that founded the Hellenic league.

    Ancient Macedonians also self-identified as Greeks at the ancient Olympics games for centuries. (and were accepted as Greeks by other Greeks). If self-identification is the argument of what is recognized as ethnicity (as is claimed with the former Yugoslav republic)… then ancient Macedonians were not an iota less Greek than the Spartans, Athenians et al they competed against during strictly Pan-Hellenic sporting events.

    e.g.
    Men of Athens… Had I not greatly at heart the common welfare of Greece I should not have come to tell you; but I am myself Greek by descent, and I would not willingly see Greece exchange freedom for slavery.” – Herodotus, The Histories, 9.45, translated by G.Rawlinson

    However it is notably to mention that during that era the context of Greek was different. Greek was similar to saying “Slavic”, “Germanic”, “Scandinavian”, “Hispanic”. Greeks were fractured into many nations. (that often warred against each other)

    It is very unfortunately modern politics and redefinitions of terms is obstructing an accurate telling of history. The modern “Macedonians” (whom in the 19th century mostly self-identified as ethnic Bulgarians) claim the right to self-identification for themselves (and openly say they are not Greeks). Yet seemingly wish to deny that same principle to ancient Macedonians. (who self-identified as Greeks) Rather inconsistent logic.

    • Jayse says:

      Nice factual post. Thank you🙂

      • Alex Imreh says:

        ‘Everything we have on Macedonians is in Greek and about Greece.’ Exactly! – ‘history’ is ‘written by ‘winners’ and those who are writing ad litteram the history.
        But there are other ‘nations’ that made a lot of history, without taking the trouble of bragging in written stories – Dacians, Getes, Cimmerians, Scytians, Massagetae. Today we can trace their real history through ADN studies, lingvistic studies and other studies. Greeks made a ‘great’ job by promoting themselves while they sistematically destroyed for centuries the Vlach nations in the Balkans, together with the Slavs. So, …

  2. Vanalander says:

    Reblogged this on Vanaland and commented:
    The Cimmerians are probably the last wave of migration (around 700 BCE) from the R1b homeland. No, cimmerians was R1a
    Germanic people (Makromannes) claim (partial) Cimmerian ancestry.

    The ancient proto-Germanic people: The three main haplogroups associated with Germanic people are I1, I2b1 and R1b-U106.

    No, R1b-U106 was Westgermans, I & R1a was Germans – exactly Ur-Germans.

    In Neolithic times, it was at the centre of the Danubian cultures, which was composed of I2 hunter-gatherers (soon converted to farming) and E-V13 farmers from Thessaly. Then came the Slavic invasion (around 3,000 BCE), followed by the Proto-Italo-Celts and Alpine Celts (2,000 BCE to 200 BCE), who brought respectively R1a and R1b to the region.

    Give me one neolithic mummy of R1b in Europe!!!! Who you found neolithic R1b in europe?
    Neolithikum that means 7000BC – 3000 BC. In this time is only R1a, I, G predominant in europe.
    A bit J2, E-V13 is NOT RELEVANT. That is a result of SeaTrading.
    No Saami N, no Keltic/Westgerman R1b nothing.

    All Northern Europeans R1a and I was lactosetolerant. Look after a lactosemap of europe and you found northeuropeans in Iberia, England, Ireland, France, northern Italy. 3000 years earlier as anglosaxons.
    The rest of europe was dominant southeuropean (means R1a, I and G from balkan cultures).
    Haplogroup G and southern europe R1a was not lactosetolerant, LBK was not lactosetolerant.
    Today, R1a and G is rare in Westeuropa. Today, R1a is rare in Germany.
    Bellbeaker/Westgermans have killed the complete local population in West Europe and in Germany.

    You write Migration of R1a from East, sorry, the population in Ukraine/Belarus are younger as the population of europe. The way was a expansion from Easteuropa to Asia (over Ukraine and Belarus).

    And Daanan was not E-V13, that means Danan, Danisch people, NorthEuropeans.
    The macedones was Oldeuropeans, Epirus (Albania) and Karer was oldeuropeans. They all was R1a, I or G with parts from E (from Egypt) and J2 (from Anatolia).

    You see lots of “kelts”… give me a celtic mummy what from neolitic europe.
    that is a fix idea – but the rest, great work
    greets from vanaland

  3. Μr. Alex Imreh,
    you wrote that “ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish historians, geographers, and orators, speak of the Macedonians as distinct nation, separate from their Greek, Thracian, and Illyrian neighbors”
    Had you ever bothered yourself to read what actually ancient authors wrote in regards to Macedonian ethnicity and what Macedonians themselves thought of their ethnic belonging and how they self-identified in ethnic terms, you would never write this. Here is a small sample of quotes of ancient authors, Greeks, Romans and Jews, that obviously consider Macedonians as a Greek people:

    Alexander I, the great-great-grandfather of Alexander the Great, addressing to Athenian generals before the crucial battle of Plataea during the Persian invasion of Greece (479 BC) :
    “I myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery…I am Alexander the Macedonian.”
    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0126:book=9:chapter=45:section=2
    Herodotus, “The histories”, 9.45.2-3

    A letter of Alexander the Great to king Darius:
    Your ancestors came into Macedonia and the rest of Greece and treated us ill, without any previous injury from us. I, having been appointed commander in chief of the Greeks, and wishing to take revenge on the Persians, crossed over into Asia, hostilities being begun by you.
    Arrian, “Alexander’s Anabasis” CHAPTER XIV. DARIUS’S LETTER, AND ALEXANDER’S REPLY
    http://websfor.org/alexander/arrian/book2a.asp

    Philip V, king of Macedonia from 221 to 179 BC, adressing to Aetolian envoys:
    “For on many occasions when I and the other Greeks sent embassies to you…”
    http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/18*.html
    Polybius, “History”, 18.4

    Treaty between Hannibal and King Philip of Macedon
    This is a sworn treaty between us, Hannibal the general, Mago, Myrcan, Barmocar, and all other Carthaginian senators present with him, and all Carthaginians serving under him, on the one side, and Xenophanes the Athenian, son of Cleomachus, the envoy whom King Philip, son of Demetrius, sent to us on behalf of himself, the Macedonians and allies, on the other side.
    In the presence of Zeus, Hera, and Apollo: in the presence of the Genius of Carthage, of Heracles, and Iolaus: in the presence of Ares, Triton, and Poseidon: in the presence of the gods who battle for us and the Sun, Moon, and Earth; in the presence of Rivers, Lakes, and Waters: in the presence of all the gods who possess MACEDONIA AND THE REST OF GREECE:
    Polybius, “Histories”, VII, 3. 9.
    http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/7*.html

    Polybius relates the racial kinship between Aetolians, Achaeans and Macedonians in the speech of Lyciscus the Acarnanian addressing Cleonicus and Chlaeneas, the Aetolian envoys, at the assembly of Sparta :

    “A mighty similarity exists, no doubt, in your minds, and no diversity at all! Then you were contending for glory and supremacy with Achaeans and Macedonians, men of kindred blood with yourselves, and with Philip their leader; now a war of slavery is threatening Greece against men of another race, whom you think to bring against Philip, but have really unconsciously brought against yourselves and all Greece. For just as men in the stress of war, by introducing into their cities garrisons superior in strength to their own forces, while successfully repelling all danger from the enemy, put themselves at the mercy of their friends,–just so are the Aetolians acting in the present case. For in their desire to conquer Philip and humble Macedonia, they have unconsciously brought such a mighty cloud from the west, as for the present perhaps will overshadow Macedonia first, but which in the sequel will be the origin of heavy evils to all Greece”.
    Polybius, “Histories”, 9. 37
    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D9%3Achapter%3D37
    We see in the above passage, how the Acarnanian envoy considers Aetolians, Achaeans, Acarnanians and Macedonians people of kindred blood, that is Greek and makes a clear juxtaposition between them and the Romans on ethnic basis, Romans are described as not being of kindred blood but as foreigners who belong to another race.

    Again, you bitterly denounced Alexander, because,when he believed himself to be wronged, he punished Thebes: but of his having exacted vengeance of the Persians for their outrages on all the Greeks you made no mention at all; nor of his having released us all in common from heavy miseries, by enslaving the barbarians, and depriving them of the supplies which they used for the ruin of the Greeks,–sometimes pitting the Athenians against the ancestors of these gentlemen here, at another the Thebans; nor finally of his having subjected Asia to the Greeks.
    Polybius, “Histories”, 9. 34
    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D9%3Achapter%3D34

    “Not being able to say anything in defence of any of these acts, you talk pompously about your having resisted the invasion of Delphi by the barbarians, and allege that for this Greece ought to be grateful to you. But if for this one service some gratitude is owing to the Aetolians; what high honour do the Macedonians deserve, who throughout nearly their whole lives are ceaselessly engaged in a struggle with the barbarians for the safety of the Greeks? For that Greece would have been continually involved in great dangers, if we had not had the Macedonians and the ambition of their kings as a barrier, who is ignorant?
    Polybius, “Histories”, 9. 35
    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D9%3Achapter%3D35

    The view of a Roman author, Titus Livius, about Macedonians:The assembly of the Aetolians, which they call Panaetolium, was to meet on a certain day. In order to be present at this, the king’s ambassadors hastened their journey, and Lucius Furius Purpureo also arrived, deputed by the consul. Ambassadors from the Athenians,
    likewise, came to this assembly. The Macedonians were first heard, as with them the latest treaty had been made…No, a Roman praetor presides at the meeting; summoned by his command they assemble; they behold him, attended by his lictors seated on a lofty throne, issuing his haughty edicts. His rods are ready for their backs, his axes for their necks, and every year they are allotted a different master…If foreigners who are separated from us to a greater distance by their language, manners, and laws, than by the distance by sea and land, are allowed to get footing here, it is madness to hope that any thing will continue in its present state…(Here the Macedonian ambassador refers to the Roman consul who was present at that Greek congress)…Trifling causes occasionally unite and disunite the Aetolians, Acarnanians, and Macedonians, men speaking the same
    language. With foreigners, with barbarians, all Greeks have, and ever will have, eternal war: because they are enemies by nature, which is always the same, and not from causes which change with the times. (The Macedonian ambassador who speaks in the above passage couldn’t have made it more clear: he obviously juxtaposes the foreign and barbarian Romans, on the one hand, to the Macedonians, Aetolians and Acarnanians who share the same Greek origin, language and culture).

    Titus Livius, “The history of Rome”, XXXI, 29.
    http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=59609&pageno=136

    The view of another Roman author about Macedonians:
    “Such, at all events,were the opinions generally entertained in the reign of Alexander the Great, at a time when Greece was at the height of her glory, and the most powerful country in the world”
    “The natural history” of Pliny the Elder,chapter 12
    http://books.google.com/books?id=IUoMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA25

    Claudius Aelianus (ca. 175 – ca. 235) (Greek: Κλαύδιος Αἰλιανός), often seen as just Aelian, born at Praeneste, was a Roman author and teacher of rhetoric who flourished under Septimius Severus and probably outlived Elagabalus, who died in 222. He spoke Greek so perfectly that he was called “honey-tongued” (meliglossos); Roman-born, he preferred Greek authors, and wrote in a slightly archaizing Greek himself. In chapter XXV of the 2nd book of “Ποικίλη Ιστορία” (Various histories) he speaks of the “fortunate day” of the Greeks, the sixth day of Thargelion (a month of the Athenian calendar) as follows:

    CHAPTER XXV.
    That the sixth of the Month Thargelion was fortunate to the Greeks.
    It is observed, that on the sixth day of the month Thargelion many good fortunes have befallen not only the Athenians, but divers others.Socrates was born on this day, the Persians vanquished on this day ; and the Athenians sacrifice three hundred Goats to Agrotera upon this day in pursuit of Miltiades his vow : On the same day of this month was the fight of Platææ, in which the Grecians had the better : (for the former fight which I mentioned was at Artemisium) neither was the Victory which the Greeks obtained at Mycale on any other day ; seeing that the victory atPlatææ and Mycale happened on the self-same day. Likewise Alexander the Macedonian, son of Philip, vanquished many Myriads of the barbarians on the sixth day, when he took Darius Prisoner. All which is observed to have happened on this month.
    http://penelope.uchicago.edu/aelian/varhist2.xhtml

    Quintus Curtius Rufus, “The history of the life and reign of Alexander the Great”.

    Alexander informed that the attendant had brought a human head stepped out of the tent and inquiring into the affair heard the narrative of the slave. The king’s mind was now the seat of perplexing debate. That a renegade and traitor was taken off whose life would have retarded his august plans he estimated as a momentous benefit. On the other hand a transcend and enormity roused his abhorrence. The female barbarian had perfidiously murdered a husband who from her deserved most highly and with whom she shared parental joys. The foulness of the crime surpassed the gratefulness of the service He caused to be proclaimed to her: Depart from the camp lest the more clement minds and manners of the Greek soldiers should be depraved by entertaining a pattern of savage licentiousness.

    http://books.google.gr/books?id=v3IIAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA231#v=onepage&q&f=false

    The present solicitude on this as on other occasions turned awakened recollection to former presages. When Darius at the beginning of his reign had caused THE PERSIAN SCABBARD TO BE MODELLED AFTER THE GRECIAN FORM, the Chaldaeans had prognosticated that the empire of the Persians should pass into the possession of the people whose arms were imitated.
    http://books.google.gr/books?id=93EIAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA284#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Alexander undisturbed required the Egyptian sages whom he esteemed as superior astronomers to disclose their sentiments respecting the phenomenon in the presence of his generals and minor officers whom he had summoned to head quarters. These philosophers well knew that the celestial bodies perform their revolutions in appointed periods of time and that the moon suffers an eclipse whenever it passes under the shadow of the earth or is otherwise shut out from the sun. nevertheless they withheld from the multitude the true cause of the appearance affirming, that THE SUN WAS THE PLANET OF GREECE as the moon was of Persia and that a lunar eclipse portended the slaughter and overthrow of the barbarians. In confirmation they recited ancient accounts of Persian kings who had been warned by occupations of the moon that to fight were to rebel against the gods. Nothing has more influence over the many than superstition The populace otherwise turbulent cruel and fickle when carried away by a solemn imposture yield that obedience to soothsayers which they refuse to their rulers. Thus the answer of the Egyptians circulated among the soldiers revived their drooping hopes and inspired them with new confidence.
    http://books.google.gr/books?id=93EIAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA411

    Dionysius of Hallicarnassus describes the way King Pyrrhus of Epirus arrayed his troops before the battle against the Romans as follows:

    “Of the horse, he stationed the Samnite, Thessalian and Bruttian squadrons and the Tarentine mercenary force upon the right wing, and the Ambraciot, Lucanian and Tarentine squadrons and the Greek mercenaries, consisting of Acarnanians, Aetolians, Macedonians and Athamanians on the left”.

    Dionysius of Hallicarnassus, “The Roman antiquities”, book XX
    https://archive.org/stream/romanantiquities07dionuoft#page/387/mode/1up

    Dio Cassius describes as follows the population of the Greek colonies that had been established in Asia after Alexander the Great’s campaign

    But Crassus, desiring for his part to accomplish something that involved glory and at the same time profit, and seeing that no such thing was possible in Syria, where the people themselves were quiet, and those who had formerly warred against the Romans were by reason of their powerlessness causing no disturbance, made a campaign against the Parthians. He had no complaint to bring against them nor had the war been assigned to him; but he heard that they were exceedingly wealthy and expected that Orodes would be easy to capture, because he was but newly established. Therefore he crossed the Euphrates and advanced far into Mesopotamia, devastating and ravaging the country. For since his crossing was unexpected by the barbarians no careful guard of the ford had been kept. Consequently Silaces, then satrap of that region, was quickly defeated near Ichnae, a fortress so named, after contending with a few horsemen; and being wounded, he retired to report personally to the king the Romans’ invasion. Crassus, on his side, quietly won over the garrisons and especially the Greek cities, among them one named Nicephorium. FOR COLONISTS IN GREAT NUMBERS, DESCENDANDS OF THE MACEDONIANS AND OF THE OTHER GREEKS WHO HAD CAMPAIGNED IN ASIA WITH THEM, readily transferred their allegiance to the Romans, since they were oppressed by the violence of the barbarians , and placed strong hopes in the invaders, whom they regarded as friends of the Greeks.
    Dio Cassius, “Roman history”, book 40, 13.1
    http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/40*.html

    Josephus:

    And when he had said this to Parmenio, and had given the high priest his right hand, the priests ran along by him, and he came into the city. And when he went up into the temple, he offered sacrifice to God, according to the high priest’s direction, and magnificently treated both the high priest and the priests. And when the Book of Daniel was showed him, wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended. And as he was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the present; but the next day he called them to him, and bid them ask what favors they pleased of him;
    http://books.google.com/books?id=YU4-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA237

    Aphrahat/Aphraates (c.280-367)
    Because after that Alexander the Macedonian became king, the kingdom of the Greeks was founded, since Alexander also was one of them, even of the Greeks.
    http://books.google.com/books?id=lE_TafAcVkUC&pg=PA358

    But when Alexander the Greek came, he slew Darius, King of Media and Persia. For thus the angel said to Daniel, when he was explaining the vision to him
    http://books.google.com/books?id=lE_TafAcVkUC&pg=PA354

  4. I agree with the “history buff” on this “The ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish historians, geographers, and orators, speak of the Macedonians as distinct nation, separate from their Greek.” Greeks consisted of 232 tribes speaking 204 Hellenic dialects, worst of which was not the Macedonian dialect which we encounter in the “katadesmos” but the Ozolian dialect. Everything we have on Macedonians is in Greek and about Greece. There is NOT one ancient historian who categorized Macedonians as a distinct non -Hellenic nation within the context of the Hellenic ethnos. not one. Demosthemes’ attack against Philip II was an attack of political nature, about which Badian has stated “This, of course, is simple abuse. It may have nothing to do with historical fact, any more than the orators’ tirades against their personal enemies usually have. But as I have tried to make clear, we are not concerned with historical fact as such; we are concerned only with sentiment, which is itself historical fact and must be taken seriously as such.”[(“STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF ART VOL 10: MACEDONIA AND GREECE IN LATE CLASSICAL AND EARLY HELLENISTIC TIMES” by the National Gallery of Art, Washington) “Greeks and Macedonians”].

    Regarding the terminology of a nation:
    In Homer’s Iliad, II 87 and VII 115 one finds an elementary definition of an ethnos (ἒθνος) or nation. Herodotus offers not only a more precise definition of the same in I.56.2, (compare to I.57.3), in 8.144.2 he actually defines the Greek nation as “the kinship of all Greeks in blood and speech, and the shrines of gods and the sacrifices that we have in common, and the likeness of our way of life” while in I.101 he defines genos (γένος) or tribe as the subdivision of a nation. Arrian in II.10 declares genos as tribe. In Works and Days 526 – 530, Hesiod, a poet who lived in circa seventh century BC, states “for the sun … shines more sluggishly upon the whole race of all Hellenes (Greeks),” which shows that the genesis of the Greeks did not take place in our day for the first time; only the uninformed choose to believe so. Aristotle explains also the change of name from Graeki to Hellenes on the Pindus Mountain range (Meteorologika, I, 13). For the word genos, see Lexicon Liddell, Scott, Jones s.v. γένος.

    The above means that the Hellenic nation existed at the time of Homer and it is why Homer and others after him explain the nature of the Hellenic nation. Under the same notion, who can argue that Israel did not exist as a nation at the time of Moses? One must differentiate between a nation and a country. Politically speaking a nation, a nation-state (and a country) are not interchangeable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s