DOKUMENTE PEJ AUSTRALIE

"In later times more than half of ^Etolia ceased to be Grecian, and without doubt adopted the manners and language of the Illyrians, from which point the A thamanes, an Epirote and Illyrian nation, pressed into the south of Thessaly. "

The Historians' History of the World: Greece to the Peloponnesian war
Henry Smith Williams - 1904 - p. 111

http://books.google.com/books?id=1JBqFWKSAxwC&q=In+later+times+more+than+half+of+^Etolia+ceased+to+be+Grecian,+and+without+doubt+adopted+the+manners+and+language+of+.&dq=In+later+times+more+than+half+of+^Etolia+ceased+to+be+Grecian,+and+without+doubt+adopted+the+manners+and+language+of+.&hl=en&ei=u3VRTp-tDonXsgbihpm_Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg

Robert Browning's Medieval and Modern Greek, 1983, p. 2, n. 7 "The language of the Epirotes is repeatedly described in antiquity as non-Greek (Thucydides 1.47, 1.51, 2.80, Strabo, 8.1.3). Yes the Epirotes were connected with the origin of various Greek communities. There may well have been an ethnic and linguistic mixture in Epirus, some tribes speaking Greek, others Illyrian or some other language (cf. Hammond (1967) 423; Katičić (1976) 120-7)" (my note on bibliography: Hammond's work is Epirus while Katičić's is Ancient Languages of the Balkans) or Graham Shipley's The Greek World after Alexander, 2000, p. 111 "The Arrian passage reminds us of an important fact of Macedonia's location: its neighbours - Thracians, Paionians, Epirotes and Illyrians - were primarily non-urban peoples with more or less hellenized elites."

3 Greece was then shaken by mighty disturbances. The Achaeans, driven from Laconia, established themselves in those localities which they occupy to‑day. The Pelasgians migrated to Athens, and a warlike youth named Thessalus, of the race of the Thesprotians, with a great force of his fellow-countrymen took armed possession of that region, which, after his name, is now called Thessaly. Hitherto it had been called the state of the Myrmidones.

Tum Graecia maximis concussa est motibus. Achaei ex Laconica pulsi eas occupavere sedes, quas nunc obtinent; Pelasgi Athenas commigravere, acerque belli iuvenis nomine Thessalus, natione Thesprotius, cum magna civium manu eam regionem armis occupavit, quae nunc ab eius nomine Thessalia appellatur, ante Myrmidonum vocitata civitas.

Aemilius Sura says in his book on the chronology of Rome: "The Assyrians were the first of all races to hold world power, then the Medes, and after them the Persians, and then the Macedonians. Then through the defeat of Kings Philip and Antiochus, of Macedonian origin, following closely upon the overthrow of Carthage, the world power passed to the Roman people. Between this time and the beginning of the reign of Ninus king of the Assyrians, who was the first to hold world power, lies an interval of nineteen hundred and ninety-five years."16

Aemilius Sura de annis populi Romani: Assyrii principes omnium gentium rerum potiti sunt, deinde Medi, postea Persae, deinde Macedones; exinde duobus regibus Philippo et Antiocho, qui a Macedonibus oriundi erant, haud multo post Carthaginem subactam devictis summa imperii ad populum Romanum pervenit. Inter hoc tempus et initium regis Nini Assyriorum, qui princeps rerum potitus est,13 intersunt anni MDCCCCXCV.14

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Velleius_Paterculus/1*.html

https://i.servimg.com/u/f45/13/95/49/70/1_bmp10.jpg

Albanian identities: myth and history
By Stephanie Schwandner-Sievers, Bernd Jürgen Fischer

Their one strength lay in the cavalry: Pharasmanes was formidable also in infantry, for life in a highland district has trained the Iberians and Albanians to superior hardiness and endurance. They claim to have originated from Thessaly, at the time when Jason, after the departure of Medea with the children she had borne him, retraced his steps, a little later, to the empty palace of Aeëtes and the kingless realm of Colchis.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Annals/6B*.html

During the entire historical period Epirus was more Illyrian than Greek.

Library of Universal History: Ancient history, Israel Smith Clare, 1906, p. 706

"Neither Macedonia nor Epirus to the west were ever part of Mycenaean Greece"

source: K. A. Wardle, "Mycenaean Trade and Influence in Northern Greece," in C. Zerner, P. Zerner, and J. Winder (eds.), Wace and Blegen, Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age: 1939-1989 (Amsterdam 1993), p. 117

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

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

Epirus is "the continent," in opposition to islands; we find it so especially in the Odyssey and in the Homeric Catalogue, where it is mentioned in opposition to the Cephallenian empire of the islands. Afterwards the name assumed a different meaning. After the Trojan war, the Acarnanians spread over that coast; the Aetolians, by the side of the Curetes, rose from a small to a very large people, and a number of Greek colonies established themselves on that coast. The Acarnauians were late settlers in those parts; in the Iliad they are not yet mentioned there. In the time of Thucydides, the name Epirots is vague and indefinite, Acarnaniaus, Aetolians, and even Loerians, being mentioned under this name, but especially Arcananians and Aetolians; but in the proper sense, the name Epirots even then, and afterwards generally, was the designation of the nations between the Acroceraunian mountains—the perpetual seat of storm and thunder—and the Ambracian gulf; these nations in the earlier times had no common appellation. But Epirots, as far as their origin is concerned, dwelt even in Aetolia, and a great many of the Aetolian tribes were Epirots; the Dolopians, and other mountain tribes of Pindus, did not differ from the Epirots. "In the north the Epirots extended even as far as Argyrocastro in Macedonia, and down the Illyrian Aornus."
Theopompus justly called all those tribes Pelasgian; their country contained Dodona, the centre and sanctuary of the Pelasgians, and the seat of the Pelasgian oracle, just as in the East Samothrace was the chief seat of the Pelasgian worship. Eighteen tribes in Epirus, whose names I need not detail, are considered to have belonged to the Pelasgians. They extended even into Macedonia; and the genuine Macedonians, in the narrowest sense of the name, were probably a kindred race; but having subdued Thracian, Illyrian, and Greek tribes, they had become greatly altered, while the Epirots had remained pure and unchanged. One Marsyas, a Macedonian author, according to the Scholia on the Odyssey, called them Siceli, and that with justice. Voss was the first to direct attention to that passage, and I have made use of it.2 The Siceli in the Odyssey are the Epirots; the Pelasgians in southern Italy, and to the north, even beyond the Tiber, are known under the name of Siculi, under which they also appear in the island of Sicily; but all belong to one and the same race.
The question to what race the Epirots belonged was formerly answered with the greatest confusion, and people felt no uneasiness about it. They were without hesitation declared to be Greeks, although the expression of the ancients is ambiguous. During the latter period, after the downfall of

the royal house of Pyrrhus, i. e., in the sixth century after the building of Rome, the Epirots had greatly assimilated themselves to the Greeks, whence, in the latter period of antiquity, they were regarded as Greeks; but this belief is erroneous. They had, it is true, more Greek civilisation than the Macedonians, but this was only accidental, "and Polybius calls them Greeks only because they had become hcllenised; but hellenised Greeks must be well distinguished from real Greeks." On this subject see Cicero's speech for Flaccus. The Lydians, Mysians, and Carians, were all regarded as Greeks; but Cicero expressly states, that the Greeks despised them as complete barbarians. Those nations, however, had become so much hellenised, that the Romans did not hear them speak any other language but Greek: they wrote Greek, their ordinary language and everything else was Greek, and the Romans, therefore, naturally looked upon them as real Greeks. "Thucydides calls the Epirots barbarians, and both Scylax and Dicaearchus reckoned Amphilochia as the commencement of Greece. Strabo, too, is not ambiguous on this point; and the fact that Herodotus calls Dodona one of the most ancient Greek sanctuaries, points only to a community of religious worship." As Siculi and Pelasgians, the Epirots were not, indeed, foreign to the Greeks, but still more foreign than e. g. the Franks were to the Goths. It may have been difficult for Goths and AngloSaxons to understand each other, but it was still more difficult for the Pelasgians and Greeks. Thucydides ( ?) in speaking of some Aetolian tribes with Epirot names, says that they were barbarians, and that, too, αξυνετωτατοι, while the Mysians and others are called only αξυνετοι. In like manner, the Russians and Bohemians understand each other more easily than the Russians and Poles; and the Russians and Croats, again, understand each other better than Cossacks and Croats. But the fact that the Epirots are called the most unintelligible, shows that there must have been at least a possibility to understand them.

During the Peloponnesian war, all those Epirot tribes existed separately from one another. The Molottians and Thesprotians alone were united under one prince; but the Chaonians and the other tribes were independent, "forming no kind of confederation; still, however, one or other of them predominated. This isolation rendered it possible to establish
there such a large number of Greek colonies; and, moreover, the fact that colonies were established there, is a proof that the Epirots were not Greeks; for we surely cannot suppose that the Greeks founded colonies in their own country." We find among them the same institutions as in Greece, but in their historical development they always were a couple of centuries behind the Greeks. They still preserved the ancient and simple mode of life, they were Απυργοι, and had no towns surrounded by walls, but lived in open villages containing only an acropolis (fort), into which, in times of war, they carried their property, and their wives and children. But the Acarnanians, whose settlements belong to a later date, dwelt in towns. They were free, and when they had kings, they were the descendants of heroic families, whose ancestors were generally connected with Troy, as we find to have been the case with all the Pelasgian nations; some also traced their origin to the heroes of Greece. Their states were mostly very small, or if not small, at least very weak, and their princes had no authority. This accounts for the circumstance, that when in the Peloponnesian war all the Epirot tribes were called to arms against Cnemus and the Acarnanians, they were so exceedingly feeble and powerless.
At the same period we meet with the guardian of Tharyps, king of the Molottians. The form Molossians, by which we generally designate that people, is quite arbitrary; the double σ has come into use, because the double τ is considered to be Attic; and hence the form Molossi has been introduced; but the name by which the people called themselves, was no doubt Μολοττοι. Aristotle, who cannot be said to employ Attic forms, calls them Μολοττοι; and the Greek grammarian Aelius Dionysius (in Eustathius on Iliad «) informs us that the double τ was a Thessalian form. The royal family of the Molottians, the Aeacidae, traced their origin to Achilles, as the dynasty of the Macedonians traced theirs to Heracles. But there is no historical idea either in the one case or in the other, for Achilles was unknown to the Molottians under that name: they called him Aspetus, and traced their origin to Pyrrhus, the son of Achilles. The two names of the son of Achilles, Pyrrhus and Neoptolemus, shows an amalgamation of two entirely different stories. It cannot but make us smile, to hear that at Troy Pyrrhus assumed the name of Neoptolemus,
and afterwards again took that of Pyrrhus. The stories of Neoptolemus and Pyrrhus were quite different, and refer to different persons, but were afterwards transferred to one. In the Trojan story the son of Achilles never had any other name but Neoptolemus; Euripides was the first that here introduced confusion.
At the time of the Peloponnesian war, great changes were brought about among the Epirots by the above mentioned king Tharyps or Tharybas (Tharytas is a mere slip of a copyist). Tharyps is the Greek form, and Tharybas the Pelasgian. The Pelasgian nations formed the names of Greek towns ending in as from the oblique case, as in Italy, Taras, Tarantum; in Sicily, Acragas, Agrigentum; and Byzas, Byzantium; and we may assert in general, that wherever there occurs a double termination in a name (Greek and Italian), the simpler form is Greek, and the longer one Pelasgian or barbarous. Tharyps is of the highest importance in the history of those tribes. I am surprised that no one in the eighteenth century has made him the hero of some historico-political novel, such as were written by the Chevalier Ramsay and even by the great Haller (Usong). At the beginning of the war his father died, leaving him as a boy under age; and his guardian sent him to Athens where he was to receive a Greek education. The Athenians, availing themselves of this opportunity, concluded a treaty with the Epirots, which however produced no consequences. In the meantime, the administration of his principality was carried on by his guardian in a faithless manner. When the young barbarian had finished his education and returned to his own country, he introduced among the Molottians, Greek forms, Greek manners, and the language of Greece as far as he could, for his power, like that of all other Molottian kings, was very limited.

Lectures on ancient history: from the earliest times to the taking of ... By Barthold Georg Niebuhr, Marcus Carsten Nicolaus von Niebuhr, p. 134-138

I Have already remarked that all the Epirot tribes had institutions, the foundations of which were the same as those of the Greeks. Thus we have mention of γενι among them. Their government was by no means despotie, but a monarchy limited by laws. Aristotle mentions the Molottians along with the Spartans, as an instance of a μοναρχια πατριοςI; and he says that the power of their kings was as limited as that of the kings of Sparta. By law their power was extremely narrow; but personal influence could change anything, as was the case, e.g., with the kings during the middle ages. In England, the power of the Norman kings over their barons was limited by law; but as conquerors they set themselves above the law and ruled as sovereigns, not only in an arbitrary, but even in a tyrannical manner. Such also was the case with the Spartan, Epirot, and Molottian kings. Passaro was their capital: there they swore mutually—the king to observe the law, and the people to obey. I do not know whether this was done once for all, or whether it was repeated every year; but I believe that the latter was customary, and that the oath was taken at the πανιγυρεις.
These Molottian kings had as yet no towns, and even in the time of Pyrrhus we find the greatest simplicity in their manners and mode of living. The king's wealth consisted in his flocks, and their shepherds were nobles, as in the Homeric poems. Down to the time of Tharyps, there are no Epirot coins; they are not found till a later period, which is another evidence of the simplicity of their manners.
Tharyps, then, was the king who hellenised the Molottians; and this change was communicated also, more or less, to the other Epirot nations. "This is all we know of his reign." He left behind him two sons, Alcetas and Neoptolemus, which names show his anxiety to trace his family to Greek ancestors. The earlier names are altogether barbarous, but they now claimed to be descended from Achilles: changing their ancestral hero Aspetus, the father of Pyrrhus, into Achilles; and as they adopted the Greek legend of the marriage of Andromache with Pyrrhus, Trojan names also occur: Neoptolemus, Troas, the sister of Pyrrhus, and Deidamia. Hence we must infer that the poems about Troy were not unknown to those nations. Alcetas succeeded his father, but had scarcely anything beyond the title of king. The Greeks at least do not mention him as king, and Xenophon gives him the title υπαρχος.

p. 139

The Andromache and Euripidean Tragedy By William Allan