ILLYRIAN BACKGROUND OF ANCIENT EPIROTS
DHIMOSTEN BUDINA</p>
ILLYRIAN ETHNIC ATTRIBUTES OF EPIRIOTIC TRIBES
(Translated from Studime Historike, 1969, #1)</p>
</p>
</p>
One of the fundamental problems of the History of Epirus, which has caused an active discussion as well as division in the opinion, has been the subject of ethnic attributes of Eriotic tribes. This important subject has attracted the attention of historians as well as linguists for some time. All expressed opinions concerning the ethnos of Epiriotic tribes are based on the authoritativeness of authors from antiquity, especially Thucydides and to a lesser degree on the archeological evidence; opinions have been varied as well as contradictory. As a consequence, it is not surprising that the information used by some to reject the Hellenic origin of Epiriotic tribes, has been used by others to convey opposite opinions. The majority of authors view Epiriotes as being Illyrian. This view is supported by the works of Wissowa1, Kretchmer Meyer2, Treidler3, etc. At the same time there have been other authors such as Fch4, Beloch5, Kaerst6 and Schmid7, who have support the view of the Hellenic origin of Epiriotes, thus attempting to dilute the evidence of old sources.</p>
Nilsson held an opposing view to the latter authors in his work: Studies in the ancient History of Epirus. His thesis about the Illyrian character of epiriotic tribes is based on information from written sources as well as linguistic indications. He does indicate that Hellenic culture did penetrate Epirus as of the V century BC, but at the same time he points out that even during the great flourishing of the area, non-Greek cultural elements prevailed. His conclusion is that Epiriotic tribes were barbarian, exactly as described by Thucydides, and different from Greek tribes. Consequently, he considered the discussion closed in favor of Illyrian character of the Epiriotes.
From the authors of more recent decades, D. Mustili9 has advanced the knowledge on ethnos of Epiriotic tribes. In an article dedicated to the subject of Illyrians in Epirus, he has indicated a series of new arguments on the bases of archeological evidence in Epirus. He accepts the view the besides the non-Greek or Illyrian presence, existed also a Greek element. When has this Greek element penetrated? This was hard to say because archeological digging at that time was minimal. This adds the author, would be made clear in the future by cultural layers that would be revealed. Nevertheless, some foreign authors such as Leveque10, Franke11, Leppore12, and lately, particularly Hammond, continue to support the opinion that the Epiriotes were not Illyrian. Hammond goes even further. He maintains Epirus to be a province of Greece and considers Albanians and the Albanian language to have penetrated later13. A more moderate attitude is maintained by authors from nnorthern eighboring countries, such as Papazoglla14 and others who separate Epirus from other Illyrian regions, considering it either a distinct political and economic entity or else ignore it. A totally different stance is maintained by most of Greek authors who due to their chauvinistic attitudes toward our country present Epirus as always part of Greece and as a cradle of Hellenism.
Besides the foreign authors, Albanian scholars have also considered the subject. The stance of Albanian scholars, as we will explore below, is that the Epiriotes were not Hellenic, ethnically they should be included amongst the Illyrians. This presentation will assume to undertake the effort once more and hopefully contribute to the discussion on the Illyrian attributes of Epiriotic tribes as an actual and important subject for the ancient history of the Albanian people. This study will rely on written sources, on linguistic information, as well as present a series of archeological indications that clearly speak for Illyrian character of Epiriotic tribes.
We will first deal with the question as to what authors meant by designation Epirus, and second, what the written sources say about the epiriotic tribes and how they characterized them.
In antiquity, the designation Epirus applied to south Illyrian areas that extended from River Vjosa to the northern regions of ancient Ellada15.This borders should not be taken as fixed because at times they have been moved: thus during the Phyrhus rule they extended beyond the above borders. Some of the geographers and authors in antiquity designated Epirus even some areas situated to the east of Vjosa and extended the borders of this state to include areas within today’s Skrapar and Mallakaster regions, including the city of Apolonia16. And interestingly, some of the tribes between Macedonia and Epirus were alternately called Epiriotic or Macedonian by ancient authors.
The notion “Epirus” derives from old Greek word Apeiros, which in the Doric dialect means “mainland” or “continental”; the name had various meanings at various times in the history of this area. Tukidid with the word Epirus meant lands of Locris and Acarnania, thus encompassing half the coast that extends from Streit of Corinth. He calls Asia Minor Eleniku Epeiros19, while Tucydides20 and Isocrates21 called Epeiros also a significant part of Asia. Strabo22 says Homer with the word Epirus meant land across from islands inclusive of Leucadia. Later, the inhabitants of Korkyra and surrounding islands, with the word Epirus meant the land across from these islands extending on the Ionian coast and inhabited by Chaonians and Thesprotian tribes. For these island inhabitants, Illyrian coast on Ionian Sea was only “coast” or “land”-Epirus.
As we see, the designation Epirus had a geographic meaning and not an ethnic one as supporters of Greek origin of Epiriots claim. With the name Epirus ancient authors meant originally a wide territory which later was restricted to an area across from Kerkyra. With time, during the V century BC, the notion was extended to include tribes situated in the interior, thus evolving into an collective name for the coastal territories that formed a geographic, ethnic and political entity. The notion Epirus was adapted not only by geographers, historians, authors, but also by inhabitants themselves who frequently used the name in their written documents, as in inscriptions and coins.
Theopompus, Strabo had indicated23, mentions 14 Epiriotic tribes, but from inscriptions we know that were a larger number of tribes. The English author, Hammond, tells us that there were 60 tribes in Epirus24. But only a few of these were able to develop and achieve a place in history. The main Epiriotic tribes that most frequently been mentioned for their economic and political roles have been Thesprotian, Choans, Molossis, Athamanian, Amphilochian and Cassopean. It should be noted that just like for Illyria, sources for ancient Epirus are very scarce and not much revealing. Even a few remarks that have been given were given as a matter of curiosity, or refer to the area on general terms, in context of Greek, Macedonian or Roman historical developments. Many ancient books on Epirus have either disappeared, as for example the work of Prokseni “A hisory of Epirus”, which we know only as a title, or only minute details cited by third authors have survived. Our opinion that Choens and other main Epiriotic tribes were not Hellenes, we base on the fact that many ancient authors included these tribes under general term “barbarian”. The meaning that the term “barbarian” deserves has split the scholars.
The famous hellene Tukydides makes a clear distinction between hellenes and the main epiriotic tribes. It is appropriate to cite here book II, 80, where he considered the participation in the war effort of 429BC. In this passage he writes: “The Hellenic troops with Cnemus consisted of Ambraciots, Leucadians and Anactorians, in addition to one thousand Pelopenesians with whom he arrived . Amongst the barbarians were one thousand Chaonians. Together with Chaonians were Thesprotians, Molossians, Atintintians, Paravacans and Orestians”. It is clear from this passage that Ambraciots, Leucadians and Anactorians, the Hellene historian considers to be greek, while Chaonians, Thesprotians, Molossians, Atintanians, Paravacans and Orestians he considers barbarian, that is non-Hellenic peoples. In another pessage, Tucydides considers barbarian the Persians, Taulants, Illyrians, Thracians and Macedonians. They are described as barbarian also by Strabo26, Skymni27, Polib28, Livi29, Plini30, etc.
With the notion “barbarian” Thucydides did not intend to indicate a lower cultural development in a slanderous fashion, but intended to point out language differences between Epiriots and Hellenes. The author confirms this in a different passage; talking about city of Argo in Amphilochia, Thucydides states that “the greek that the inhabitans of this city speak today learned from Ambracians who had settled in, other Amphilochians are “barbarian”. If Amphilochianses were to be Greek, why would the Hellene author indicate that Amphilochians learned Greek from Ambracians, because there would be no need to learn their own language. This was the reason why the author called them “barbarian”, just the same as he called other non-greek peoples. The opposing view that with notion “barbarian” , Thucydides intended to indicate the differences in the cultural level of people is not convincing. Hellenes in general during the middle of the V century BC did not hold themselves to be culturally superior to other peoples, say Persians and Egyptians, whom they called “barbarian”. Possibly there is another factor that gave reason for the word barbarian to take a defamatory meaning. That is, as it seems, the difference that existed between democratic Greece order and the oriental absolutism.
These references by Thucydides, should be in our opinion, sufficient enough reason to differentiate ethnically the Epiriots from the Hellenes.
Lastly, we might mention another reference, which without a doubt was taken from earlier sources. This is the notation by Stefan Byzantinius32which refers to Athamanians as being Illyrian. This source cannot be bypassed in silence without arguing as strengthening our thesis.
In support of the thesis that Epiriots are Illyrian speak also political developments in this province. Epirus remained for a long time excluded from the greek community and also from the war against the Persians; with the exception of some Corinthian colony, no other tribe from Epirus joined the war effort. When Pericles called Greek delegates to the pan-Hellenic conference in Athens, only Ambracia as a Corinthian colony was admitted from Epiriotic cities-states33.
The facts that were mentioned above prove clearly that the Epiriots were not Greek but Illyrian, and the notion “barbarian” referred to the Epiriots did not reflect the lower level of development in comparison to Greeks, but indicates the language differences between these two peoples. A valuable addition to the knowledge concerning ethnic composition of epiriotic tribes have been provided by archeological digging undertaken recently in southern Albania, specifically tumuli in Vodhine, Brodrisht, Kakavi and Upper Dropull, in Mashkullor in the Gjirokaster district, at the Rripes castle of Sarande district and especially from the three year digging at the ancient city of Jerme in Gjirokaster district.
On the list of important findings figure the tumuli at Upper Dropul.34 We will not examine the whole lot of findings, but we will note that after analyzing the construction of these tumuli and their inventories, we conclude that they do not differ in outside form or inventory to the material found at other regions of Albania. Pottery discovered, in size and form, are similar to those of Vajza35 and those of Mati36. In this pottery we see proof that the builders of Dropull tumuli came from the same ethnic group as the inhabitants of Vajze, inhabitants of Mati and other Illyrian regions, and we can conclude that in these areas existed an Illyrian population since the start of the first milleniun BC. The discovered pottery is a reinforcement of later historical sources which mention a non-greek population in these regions. Thus, if we encounter epiriotic tribes which the Greek authors in antiquity describe as Epiriotic, such as Chaones and Thesprotians, etc, we should take it to mean a population with an Illyrian ethnic origin.
We also have an additional indication which strengthens the theses of Illyrian origin of Epiriots. Chaones, Messaps of southern Italy, who crossed over to the Italian coast sometimes between the end of second millennium and the start of first millennium BC, are Chaoens whose Illyrian origin is accepted by all.37 They brought to their new homeland, not only a new material culture whose prototype have been observed in Vajze, Vlora and other Illyrian centers, but also cultural habits and the language, which are the only Illyrian language traces that are known as of today. This evidence indicates that the area from where they immigrated has to be the coastal area between Vlore and Sarande, an area which has been inhabited by the Illyrian tribe of Chaones.
Lately, Professor Hammond has also discussed the problem of tumuli in Upper Dropull, Pazhok and Mati. In his latest work, Epirus in the part where he discusses the tumuli during the early stage of the iron age, comparing them to those of northern Greece, the author has attempted to reconsider this problem. But the arguments and information he espouses prove the opposite of what he is attempting to prove. Hammond accepts the people that practiced burial in large tumuli was Illyrian, but then states that the population was Greek speaking. The rational to explain the similari
Per me shume artikuj te ngjashem vizitoni: http://www.albpelasgian.com/?p=123
DHIMOSTEN BUDINA</p>
ILLYRIAN ETHNIC ATTRIBUTES OF EPIRIOTIC TRIBES
(Translated from Studime Historike, 1969, #1)</p>
</p>
One of the fundamental problems of the History of Epirus, which has caused an active discussion as well as division in the opinion, has been the subject of ethnic attributes of Eriotic tribes. This important subject has attracted the attention of historians as well as linguists for some time. All expressed opinions concerning the ethnos of Epiriotic tribes are based on the authoritativeness of authors from antiquity, especially Thucydides and to a lesser degree on the archeological evidence; opinions have been varied as well as contradictory. As a consequence, it is not surprising that the information used by some to reject the Hellenic origin of Epiriotic tribes, has been used by others to convey opposite opinions. The majority of authors view Epiriotes as being Illyrian. This view is supported by the works of Wissowa1, Kretchmer Meyer2, Treidler3, etc. At the same time there have been other authors such as Fch4, Beloch5, Kaerst6 and Schmid7, who have support the view of the Hellenic origin of Epiriotes, thus attempting to dilute the evidence of old sources.</p>
Nilsson held an opposing view to the latter authors in his work: Studies in the ancient History of Epirus. His thesis about the Illyrian character of epiriotic tribes is based on information from written sources as well as linguistic indications. He does indicate that Hellenic culture did penetrate Epirus as of the V century BC, but at the same time he points out that even during the great flourishing of the area, non-Greek cultural elements prevailed. His conclusion is that Epiriotic tribes were barbarian, exactly as described by Thucydides, and different from Greek tribes. Consequently, he considered the discussion closed in favor of Illyrian character of the Epiriotes.
From the authors of more recent decades, D. Mustili9 has advanced the knowledge on ethnos of Epiriotic tribes. In an article dedicated to the subject of Illyrians in Epirus, he has indicated a series of new arguments on the bases of archeological evidence in Epirus. He accepts the view the besides the non-Greek or Illyrian presence, existed also a Greek element. When has this Greek element penetrated? This was hard to say because archeological digging at that time was minimal. This adds the author, would be made clear in the future by cultural layers that would be revealed. Nevertheless, some foreign authors such as Leveque10, Franke11, Leppore12, and lately, particularly Hammond, continue to support the opinion that the Epiriotes were not Illyrian. Hammond goes even further. He maintains Epirus to be a province of Greece and considers Albanians and the Albanian language to have penetrated later13. A more moderate attitude is maintained by authors from nnorthern eighboring countries, such as Papazoglla14 and others who separate Epirus from other Illyrian regions, considering it either a distinct political and economic entity or else ignore it. A totally different stance is maintained by most of Greek authors who due to their chauvinistic attitudes toward our country present Epirus as always part of Greece and as a cradle of Hellenism.
Besides the foreign authors, Albanian scholars have also considered the subject. The stance of Albanian scholars, as we will explore below, is that the Epiriotes were not Hellenic, ethnically they should be included amongst the Illyrians. This presentation will assume to undertake the effort once more and hopefully contribute to the discussion on the Illyrian attributes of Epiriotic tribes as an actual and important subject for the ancient history of the Albanian people. This study will rely on written sources, on linguistic information, as well as present a series of archeological indications that clearly speak for Illyrian character of Epiriotic tribes.
We will first deal with the question as to what authors meant by designation Epirus, and second, what the written sources say about the epiriotic tribes and how they characterized them.
In antiquity, the designation Epirus applied to south Illyrian areas that extended from River Vjosa to the northern regions of ancient Ellada15.This borders should not be taken as fixed because at times they have been moved: thus during the Phyrhus rule they extended beyond the above borders. Some of the geographers and authors in antiquity designated Epirus even some areas situated to the east of Vjosa and extended the borders of this state to include areas within today’s Skrapar and Mallakaster regions, including the city of Apolonia16. And interestingly, some of the tribes between Macedonia and Epirus were alternately called Epiriotic or Macedonian by ancient authors.
The notion “Epirus” derives from old Greek word Apeiros, which in the Doric dialect means “mainland” or “continental”; the name had various meanings at various times in the history of this area. Tukidid with the word Epirus meant lands of Locris and Acarnania, thus encompassing half the coast that extends from Streit of Corinth. He calls Asia Minor Eleniku Epeiros19, while Tucydides20 and Isocrates21 called Epeiros also a significant part of Asia. Strabo22 says Homer with the word Epirus meant land across from islands inclusive of Leucadia. Later, the inhabitants of Korkyra and surrounding islands, with the word Epirus meant the land across from these islands extending on the Ionian coast and inhabited by Chaonians and Thesprotian tribes. For these island inhabitants, Illyrian coast on Ionian Sea was only “coast” or “land”-Epirus.
As we see, the designation Epirus had a geographic meaning and not an ethnic one as supporters of Greek origin of Epiriots claim. With the name Epirus ancient authors meant originally a wide territory which later was restricted to an area across from Kerkyra. With time, during the V century BC, the notion was extended to include tribes situated in the interior, thus evolving into an collective name for the coastal territories that formed a geographic, ethnic and political entity. The notion Epirus was adapted not only by geographers, historians, authors, but also by inhabitants themselves who frequently used the name in their written documents, as in inscriptions and coins.
Theopompus, Strabo had indicated23, mentions 14 Epiriotic tribes, but from inscriptions we know that were a larger number of tribes. The English author, Hammond, tells us that there were 60 tribes in Epirus24. But only a few of these were able to develop and achieve a place in history. The main Epiriotic tribes that most frequently been mentioned for their economic and political roles have been Thesprotian, Choans, Molossis, Athamanian, Amphilochian and Cassopean. It should be noted that just like for Illyria, sources for ancient Epirus are very scarce and not much revealing. Even a few remarks that have been given were given as a matter of curiosity, or refer to the area on general terms, in context of Greek, Macedonian or Roman historical developments. Many ancient books on Epirus have either disappeared, as for example the work of Prokseni “A hisory of Epirus”, which we know only as a title, or only minute details cited by third authors have survived. Our opinion that Choens and other main Epiriotic tribes were not Hellenes, we base on the fact that many ancient authors included these tribes under general term “barbarian”. The meaning that the term “barbarian” deserves has split the scholars.
The famous hellene Tukydides makes a clear distinction between hellenes and the main epiriotic tribes. It is appropriate to cite here book II, 80, where he considered the participation in the war effort of 429BC. In this passage he writes: “The Hellenic troops with Cnemus consisted of Ambraciots, Leucadians and Anactorians, in addition to one thousand Pelopenesians with whom he arrived . Amongst the barbarians were one thousand Chaonians. Together with Chaonians were Thesprotians, Molossians, Atintintians, Paravacans and Orestians”. It is clear from this passage that Ambraciots, Leucadians and Anactorians, the Hellene historian considers to be greek, while Chaonians, Thesprotians, Molossians, Atintanians, Paravacans and Orestians he considers barbarian, that is non-Hellenic peoples. In another pessage, Tucydides considers barbarian the Persians, Taulants, Illyrians, Thracians and Macedonians. They are described as barbarian also by Strabo26, Skymni27, Polib28, Livi29, Plini30, etc.
With the notion “barbarian” Thucydides did not intend to indicate a lower cultural development in a slanderous fashion, but intended to point out language differences between Epiriots and Hellenes. The author confirms this in a different passage; talking about city of Argo in Amphilochia, Thucydides states that “the greek that the inhabitans of this city speak today learned from Ambracians who had settled in, other Amphilochians are “barbarian”. If Amphilochianses were to be Greek, why would the Hellene author indicate that Amphilochians learned Greek from Ambracians, because there would be no need to learn their own language. This was the reason why the author called them “barbarian”, just the same as he called other non-greek peoples. The opposing view that with notion “barbarian” , Thucydides intended to indicate the differences in the cultural level of people is not convincing. Hellenes in general during the middle of the V century BC did not hold themselves to be culturally superior to other peoples, say Persians and Egyptians, whom they called “barbarian”. Possibly there is another factor that gave reason for the word barbarian to take a defamatory meaning. That is, as it seems, the difference that existed between democratic Greece order and the oriental absolutism.
These references by Thucydides, should be in our opinion, sufficient enough reason to differentiate ethnically the Epiriots from the Hellenes.
Lastly, we might mention another reference, which without a doubt was taken from earlier sources. This is the notation by Stefan Byzantinius32which refers to Athamanians as being Illyrian. This source cannot be bypassed in silence without arguing as strengthening our thesis.
In support of the thesis that Epiriots are Illyrian speak also political developments in this province. Epirus remained for a long time excluded from the greek community and also from the war against the Persians; with the exception of some Corinthian colony, no other tribe from Epirus joined the war effort. When Pericles called Greek delegates to the pan-Hellenic conference in Athens, only Ambracia as a Corinthian colony was admitted from Epiriotic cities-states33.
The facts that were mentioned above prove clearly that the Epiriots were not Greek but Illyrian, and the notion “barbarian” referred to the Epiriots did not reflect the lower level of development in comparison to Greeks, but indicates the language differences between these two peoples. A valuable addition to the knowledge concerning ethnic composition of epiriotic tribes have been provided by archeological digging undertaken recently in southern Albania, specifically tumuli in Vodhine, Brodrisht, Kakavi and Upper Dropull, in Mashkullor in the Gjirokaster district, at the Rripes castle of Sarande district and especially from the three year digging at the ancient city of Jerme in Gjirokaster district.
On the list of important findings figure the tumuli at Upper Dropul.34 We will not examine the whole lot of findings, but we will note that after analyzing the construction of these tumuli and their inventories, we conclude that they do not differ in outside form or inventory to the material found at other regions of Albania. Pottery discovered, in size and form, are similar to those of Vajza35 and those of Mati36. In this pottery we see proof that the builders of Dropull tumuli came from the same ethnic group as the inhabitants of Vajze, inhabitants of Mati and other Illyrian regions, and we can conclude that in these areas existed an Illyrian population since the start of the first milleniun BC. The discovered pottery is a reinforcement of later historical sources which mention a non-greek population in these regions. Thus, if we encounter epiriotic tribes which the Greek authors in antiquity describe as Epiriotic, such as Chaones and Thesprotians, etc, we should take it to mean a population with an Illyrian ethnic origin.
We also have an additional indication which strengthens the theses of Illyrian origin of Epiriots. Chaones, Messaps of southern Italy, who crossed over to the Italian coast sometimes between the end of second millennium and the start of first millennium BC, are Chaoens whose Illyrian origin is accepted by all.37 They brought to their new homeland, not only a new material culture whose prototype have been observed in Vajze, Vlora and other Illyrian centers, but also cultural habits and the language, which are the only Illyrian language traces that are known as of today. This evidence indicates that the area from where they immigrated has to be the coastal area between Vlore and Sarande, an area which has been inhabited by the Illyrian tribe of Chaones.
Lately, Professor Hammond has also discussed the problem of tumuli in Upper Dropull, Pazhok and Mati. In his latest work, Epirus in the part where he discusses the tumuli during the early stage of the iron age, comparing them to those of northern Greece, the author has attempted to reconsider this problem. But the arguments and information he espouses prove the opposite of what he is attempting to prove. Hammond accepts the people that practiced burial in large tumuli was Illyrian, but then states that the population was Greek speaking. The rational to explain the similari
Per me shume artikuj te ngjashem vizitoni: http://www.albpelasgian.com/?p=123