Indo-European languages (Wiki)
The Indo-European languages comprise a language family of several hundred languages and dialects - 449 according to the 2005 SIL estimate, about half (219) belonging to the Indo-Aryan sub-branch -, including most of the major languages of Europe, as well as many spoken in Southwest Asia, Central Asia and South Asia. Contemporary languages in this family with more than 100 million native speakers each include Hindi, Spanish, English, Portuguese, Bengali, Russian, French, German and Punjabi. Numerous national or minority languages with fewer than 100 million native speakers also exist. Indo-European has the largest numbers of speakers of the recognized families of languages in the world today, with its languages spoken by approximately 3 billion native speakers.
Albanian · Anatolian · Armenian
Baltic · Celtic · Dacian · Germanic
Greek · Indo-Iranian · Italic · Phrygian
Slavic · Thracian · Tocharian
In 1935 the Iranian government requested those countries with which it had diplomatic relations, to call Persia "Iran". The suggestion for the change is said to have come from the Iranian ambassador to Germany, who came under the influence of the Nazis. At the time Germany was in the grip of racial fever and cultivated good relations with nations of "Arian" blood. It is said that some German friends of the ambassador persuaded him that, as with the advent of Reza Shah, Persia had turned a new leaf in its history. It was only fitting that the country be called "Iran." This would not only signal a new beginning, and bring home to the world, the new era in history, but would also signify the NOW Arian race of its population, as "Iran" is a cognate of "Arian" and derived from it.
Remembering that the Franks of France moved to, and governed Europe from Germany as the Holy Roman Empire: and they spoke what we call German today.
Old French was the Romance dialect continuum spoken in territories that span roughly the northern half of modern France and parts of modern Belgium and Switzerland from the 9th century to the 14th century. It was then known as the langue d'oïl (oïl language) to distinguish it from the langue d'oc (Occitan language, also then called Provençal), whose territory bordered that of Old French to the south. The Norman dialect was also spread to England, Ireland, the Kingdom of Sicily and the Principality of Antioch in the Levant.
Gaulish, maybe the only survivor of the continental Celtic languages in Roman times, slowly became extinct during the long centuries of Roman dominion.
Old French began when the Roman Empire conquered Gaul during the campaigns of Julius Caesar, which were almost complete by 51 BC. The Romans introduced Latin to southern France by 120 BC when it came under Roman occupation.
Beginning with Plautus's time (254–184 BC), the phonological structure of classical Latin underwent change, which would eventually yield vulgar Latin, the common spoken language of the western Roman empire. This latter form differed strongly from its classical counterpart in phonology; it was the ancestor of the Romance languages, including Old French.
Old Low Frankish
The pronunciation, the vocabulary and the syntax of Low Latin were modified step by step by the Germanic tribe of the Franks and others as their settlements in the Empire were accepted by the Romans, or forced upon them, and finally as they conquered portions of Roman Gaul that are now France and Belgium during the Migration Period. These Germanic settlements were much more consequent in Northern France and Belgium, than in the south of France and Europe. The name français is derived from the name of this tribe. Other less numerous Germanic peoples, including the Burgundians and the Visigoths, were active in the territory at that time; the Germanic languages spoken by the Franks, Burgundians, and others were not written languages, and at this remove it is sometimes difficult to identify from which specific Germanic source a given Germanic word in French is derived.
In fact, the Old Frankish language has had a determining influence on the birth of Old French, that explains partly why the first documents in Old French are older than the documents in other Romance languages
Earliest written Old French
At the third Council of Tours in 813, priests were ordered to preach in the vernacular language (either Romance or Germanic), since the common people could no longer understand formal Latin.
The earliest documents said to be written in French after the Reichenau and Kassel glosses (8th and 9th centuries) are the Oaths of Strasbourg (treaties and charters into which King Charles the Bald entered in 842):
Pro Deo amur et pro Christian poblo et nostro commun salvament, d’ist di en avant, in quant Deus savir et podir me dunat, si salvarai eo cist meon fradre Karlo, et in aiudha et in cadhuna cosa... (For the love of God and for the Christian people, and our common salvation, from this day forward, as God will give me the knowledge and the power, I will defend my brother Charles with my help in everything...)
The second-oldest document in Old French is the Eulalia sequence, which is important for linguistic reconstruction of Old French pronunciation due to its consistent spelling.
The royal House of Capet, founded by Hugh Capet in 987, inaugurated the development of northern French culture in and around Ile-de-France, which slowly but firmly asserted its ascendency over the more southerly areas of Aquitaine and Tolosa (Toulouse).
The English language is the language created by tribes that moved to Britain from West Germany around 450 AD. The Germanic languages spoken by these tribes became Anglo-Saxon, or Old English.
Germanic tribes (Saxons, Angles, and Jutes) came to Britain from around 449 AD. They made their home in the south and east of the island, pushing out the Celtic Britons who were there before them, or making them speak the English language instead of the old Celtic language.
The closest language to English that is still used today is Frisian, spoken by about 500,000 people living in the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. Despite its similarity to English, speakers of the two languages would not be able to understand each other. But there are still some people that strongly suggest that the closest language to English is the Dutch language.
Many other people came to England later at different times, speaking different languages, and these languages added more words to make today's English.
For example, around 800 AD, many Danish and Norse pirates, also called Vikings, came to the country and English received many Norse loanwords. Their languages were Germanic languages, like Old English.
After William the Conqueror took over England in 1066 AD with his armies and became king, he brought his nobles, who spoke Norman, a language closely related to French, to be the new government. They stopped English from being taught in schools for a long time, and the language changed greatly, because it was mostly being spoken instead of written for about 300 years. English borrowed so many words from Norman at that time that it could be called a different language, Middle English.
English has continued to take new words from other languages, for example mainly from French (around 30% to 40% of its words).
German is a West Germanic language related to and classified alongside English and Dutch.
The history of the language begins with the High German consonant shift during the migration period, separating Old High German dialects from Old Saxon. The earliest testimonies of Old High German are from scattered Elder Futhark inscriptions, especially in Alemannic, from the 6th century AD; the earliest glosses (Abrogans) date to the 8th; and the oldest coherent texts (the Hildebrandslied, the Muspilli and the Merseburg Incantations) to the 9th century. Old Saxon at this time belongs to the North Sea Germanic cultural sphere, and Low Saxon was to fall under German rather than Anglo-Frisian influence during the Holy Roman Empire.
As Germany was divided into many different states, the only force working for a unification or standardization of German during a period of several hundred years was the general preference of writers trying to write in a way that could be understood in the largest possible area.
When Martin Luther translated the Bible (the New Testament in 1522 and the Old Testament, published in parts and completed in 1534), he based his translation mainly on the bureaucratic standard language used in Saxony (sächsische Kanzleisprache), also known as Meißner-Deutsch (German from the city of Meissen). This language was based on Eastern Upper and Eastern Central German dialects and preserved much of the grammatical system of Middle High German (unlike the spoken German dialects in Central and Upper Germany, which had already at that time begun to lose the genitive case and the preterit). In the beginning, copies of the Bible had a long list for each region, which translated words unknown in the region into the regional dialect. Roman Catholics rejected Luther's translation initially and tried to create their own Catholic standard (gemeines Deutsch) — which, however, differed from "Protestant German" only in some minor details. It took until the middle of the 18th century to create a widely accepted standard, thus ending the period of Early New High German.
Until about 1800, standard German was almost only a written language. At this time, people in urban northern Germany, who spoke dialects very different from Standard German, learned it almost like a foreign language and tried to pronounce it as closely to the spelling as possible. Prescriptive pronunciation guides used to consider northern German pronunciation to be the standard. However, the actual pronunciation of Standard German varies from region to region.
German was the language of commerce and government in the Habsburg Empire, which encompassed a large area of Central and Eastern Europe. Until the mid-19th century it was essentially the language of townspeople throughout most of the Empire. Its use indicated that the speaker was a merchant, an urbanite, not their nationality. Some cities, such as Prague (German: Prag) and Budapest (Buda, German: Ofen), were gradually Germanized in the years after their incorporation into the Habsburg domain. Others, such as Bratislava (German: Pressburg), were originally settled during the Habsburg period and were primarily German at that time. A few cities such as Milan (German: Mailand) remained mainly non-German. However most cities, such as Prague, Budapest, Bratislava, Zagreb (German: Agram), and Ljubljana (German: Laibach), were primarily German during this time, although surrounded by territory where other languages were spoken.
In 1901, the 2nd Orthographical Conference ended with a complete standardization of the German language in its written form while the Deutsche Bühnensprache (literally, German stage language) had established rules for German three years earlier, which were later to become obligatory for general German pronunciation.
Media and written works are now almost all produced in Standard German (often called Hochdeutsch in German) which is understood in all areas where German is spoken. The first dictionary of the Brothers Grimm, the 16 parts of which were issued between 1852 and 1860, remains the most comprehensive guide to the words of the German language. In 1860, grammatical and orthographic rules first appeared in the Duden Handbook.
The Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the reconstructed common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, spoken by the Proto-Indo-Europeans. The existence of such a language has been accepted by linguists for over a century, and reconstruction is advanced and detailed.
Scholars estimate that PIE may have been spoken as a single language (before divergence began) around 3700 BC, though estimates by different authorities can vary by more than a millennium. The most popular hypothesis for the origin and spread of the language is the Kurgan hypothesis, which postulates an origin in the Pontic-Caspian steppe of Eastern Europe and Western Asia.
In modern times the existence of the language was first postulated in the 18th century by Sir William Jones, who observed the similarities between Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, and Latin. By the early 1900s, well-defined descriptions of PIE had been developed that are still accepted today (with some refinements).
The Pontic-Caspian steppe is the vast steppeland stretching from the northern shores of the Black Sea in antiquity) as far east as the Caspian Sea, from western Ukraine across the Southern Federal District and the Volga Federal District of Russia to western Kazakhstan, forming part of the larger Eurasian steppe, adjacent to the Kazakh steppe to the east. It is of the paleartic temperate grasslands, savannas, and shrublands ecoregion of the temperate grasslands, savannas, and shrublands biome.
The area corresponds to Scythia and Sarmatia of Classical antiquity. Across several millennia the steppe was used by numerous tribes of nomadic horsemen, many of which went on to conquer lands in the settled regions of Europe and in western and southern Asia. It was finally brought under the control of a sedentary people by the Russian Empire in the 16th to 18th centuries.
It is almost impossible to determine what language the ancient Europeans spoke. This results from the fact that the so-called Indo- Europeans acquired their culture from African people.
The Indo-European languages are a myth. There probably never was a Proto-Indo European people.
The IE languages are united via the Greek language. Researchers declare there was a Proto-European people because the speakers of these languages share terms. This is a false analogy because the relationship between these languages can be explained by the Greek conquest of many parts of Asia and the Roman Empire.
Due to the elite dominance model, many people conquered by the Greeks adopted Greek because it was a language that allowed the conquered people to advance.
The Romans admired the Greeks and incorporated Greek terms in Latin and transferred these terms to the people they conquered. This is why the various languages in Europe and Asia included in the IE languages share affinities. They share affinities because the conquered peoples adopted Greek culture terms so they could progress in a colonial society.
When the Europeans arrived in Europe Africans were already settled in the land. As a result, the poverty-stricken Europeans adopted African terms to describe the new cultural experiences and items they obtained from African people. This is why we don’t know what language Europeans originally spoke.
Dr. Anna Morpurgo Davies, has made it clear that "less than 40% of the words which have an Indo-European etymology". According to Dr. Davies, 52.2 % of the Greek terms in Chantraine's Dictionnaire Etymologique de la langue Grecque (1968) have an unknown etymology. The mixed nature of the Greek language results from the early settlement of the Aegean by Blacks from Africa.
Some of these words are of African origin. Robert K.G. Temple, in The Sirius Mystery, shows that many of the most common words of the Greek vocabulary are of Egyptian origin. Diop (1991) has also discussed the Egyptian origin for many Greek terms. This is why Niger-Congo languages are at the base of IE languages.
The original African migration of hunter-gatherers into Europe took place in the
Palaeolithic Period and earlier. About 6000 BC or earlier immigrants started arriving
on foot from Asia, and with them came farming and livestock. Then, about 3000 BC,
Indo-European languages were introduced, and with them the horse and the wheel.
But the speakers of these did not differ genetically from the earlier mixed Asian
immigrants. Their change of language was like a change of clothes, so to speak,
The result was the modern genetic constitution of Europe, 35% African, 65% mixed
Mediterranean or Afro-Asian. This is in accord with the genetic evidence which
testifies to the unity of the Mediterranean peoples and does not recognize a separate
“Indo-European” stock. Arnaiz -Villena, Gomez-Casado and Martinez-Laso (2002)
state clearly that there is no genetic trace of an Aryan migration, and that if it
occurred, it must have been a domination by a small élite.
Asia Minor, before the coming of the Afro-Asiatic farmers, was also colonized by
African peoples, as Runoko Rashidi (1993) has argued in a recent publication by
Karnak House. The survival in antiquity of a Niger-Congo language on Lemnos,
which was closely related to Etruscan is proof of this. And Minoan Crete, as we now
know , (Campbell-Dunn in Minoan Linear Scripts : The Niger-Congo Context), was
African (Niger-Congo). A non-Indo-European language was still spoken at Praisos on
E. Crete in the fourth century BC (Stanford 1948 : II, 322).
The shores of the Aegean and Mediterranean therefore were originally occupied by
Africans, and subsequently overlaid by Afro-Asiatic farmers. It follows that the
Mediterranean was once, in the remote past, the home of African blacks. No doubt
this is the reason that the Mediterranean peoples are olive skinned, a blend of Afro-
Asiatics and of black Africans, from closer to the equator. But this is not a linguistic
question, and raises controversial issues outside the ambit of our inquiry. So we will
not pursue it further.
Since modern European languages, the so-called Indo-European, are derived from the Indian languages of the Dravidians, plus the East Asian languages of people like the Persians, plus whatever the Aryans and other White Central Asians spoke, plus the languages of the native Black Europeans that they melded with.
Point being that modern languages are modern combinations of ancient languages - the English language is a perfect example. Therefore a case can be made for just about any connection. The relationship between English and ancient language is mainly due to literacy, not the combination of ancient and modern languages. Speakers of the Germanic languages (which) include English) lexicalized many Greek and Roman terms as they became literate in these languages.
Blacks spread civilization around the world. As other people came in contact with these Blacks they adopted cultural traditions and the terms that came along with the new way of life introduced to Europeans by the Blacks. This is evident in the relationship between Greek, and the two major lingua francas of Central Asia and South Asia: Tocharian and Sanskrit.
It is important to remember that the relationship between Indo-European and Indo-Aryan language, especially Sanskrit is via the Greek language. Greek influenced other European languages because it was recognized as a language of culture and civilization by the Romans.
It was in Pakistan that the Greek language was probably incorporated into Sanskrit. Many of the rules for Sanskrit were codified by Panini, who was born in Salatura, in Northwest Pakistan. Panini’s grammar contains 4000 rules.
When Panini wrote his grammar of Sanskrit, it was spoken by the elites in the area. Greek was also popular when Panini wrote the Sanskrit grammar. The Greeks were called Yunani or Yavana. Thus we learn from Agrawala (1953) that the Yavanani lipi (edict) was well known in Gandahara, and even Panini mentions the Yavana in his grammar. The term Yauna meant Ionian (Woodcock, 1966).
The history of Greeks in the area is quite interesting. When Alexander entered the HinduKush region in 327 B.C., Greek settlements were already in the area. By 180 BC, as the Mauryas fell into decline, the Greek Kings of Bactria took control of Western Punjab and Gandhara up to the Indus River. Under King Menander (d.130 B.C.) the Greeks had their capital at Taxila. The center of Greek culture in the area was Charsadda near Peshawar (Woodcock,1966).
Many Greek terms were probably already incorporated in the Prakrits of Northern India-Pakistan and Central Asia. Here the Greeks minted their coins with Kharoshthi, Brahmi and Greek inscriptions.
Greek was used for commercial purposes and served as a patrician lingua franca of the Kabul valley and of Gandhara. During the rule of Pushyamitra many Greeks settled in India. Due to the long history of Greeks in India, Ashoka had some of his edicts written in Greek and Aramaic bilinguals. In 44 A.D., Appolonius of Tyana when he visited Taxila found that merchants and kings learned Greek “as a matter of course” (Rahman, 2004; Woodcock,1966).
Given the popularity of Greek in the region it is not surprising that Sanskrit would show such a strong relationship to the Indic languages, since it was spoken throughout the area of a couple of hundred years. Commenting on the Greek rulers of India, Kulke and Rothermund (1998), said that “They are referred to as ‘Indo-Greeks’, and there were about forty such kings and rulers who controlled large areas of northwestern India and Afghanistan….They appear as Yavanas in stray references in Indian literature, and there are few but important references in European sources. In these distant outposts, the representatives of the Hellenic policy survived the defeat of their Western compatriots at the hands of the Parthians for more than a century” (p.70). The greatest of the Indo-Greek rulers was Menander, who is mentioned in the famous Milindapanho text. The Shakas adopted many elements of Indo-Greek culture, which they perpetuated in India for over 100 years (Rahman, 2004).
It is impossible to argue for a genetic relationship between Vedic and Greek languages based on the fact that speakers of these languages formerly lived in intimate contact in historical times. Secondly, we know the Dravidians were in Greece before the Indo-Europeans enter the country. These non-I-E speakers were called Pelasgians. As a result, Anna Morpurgo Davies, The linguistic evidence:Is there any?, in Gerald Cadogan, The End of the early Bronze Age in the Aegean (pp.93-123), says that only 40% of Greek is of Indo-European etymology (p.105). Since only 40% of the Greek terms are of I-E origin, many of the Greek terms that agree with the Indic languages may be from the 60% of the Greek lexical items that came from non-I-E speakers which as noted by Lahovary in Dravidian origins and the West, were people who spoke either Dravidian languages, or other languages from Africa, genetically related to the Dravidian group.
In conclusion, as a result of the Greek influence in Bactria and India-Pakistan, Indians and Bactrians had to acquire "Greek Culture" to enhance their position and opportunity in North India and Bactria during Greek rule. Greek rule placed prestige on status elements introduced into the region by the Greeks, especially the Greek language. Status acquired by Bactrians and Indian-Pakistanis was thus centered on acquisition of Greek language and Greek culture. This supported by the evidence that Indian elites used Greek in business and government (Rahman, 2004). This would have in turn added pressure on the Bactrians to incorporate Greek terms into a Bactrian lingua franca (i.e., Tocharian).
Given the fact that Greek administrators in Bactria and Northern India-Pakistan ,refused to fully integrate Bactrians and Indians into the ruling elite, unless they were “well versed in Greek culture and language) led to subsequent generations of native Bactrians and Indian-Pakistanis to progressively incorporate more Greek terms into their native language. This would explain why Tocharian has many features that relate to certain IE etymologies and Panini’s Sanskrit grammar, present many terms that are associated with the Greeks, but illustrates little affinity to Indo-Iranian languages, which are geographically and temporally closer to Tocharian.
Some researchers might dispute the influence of the Greek language on Sanskrit because Panini’s grammar was suppose to have been written around 400 B.C. This date for the grammar might be too early, because Rahman (2004) and Agrawala (1953) maintains that Greek was spoken in Gandahara in Panini’s time.
The influence of colonial Greeks in Central Asia would explain why the most important evidence of an I-E relationship with Sanskrit. The historical connections between the so-called Indo-European languages probably respect an areal linguistic relationship—not genetic relationship.
Here I discuss in detail the relationship between Greek and Sanskrit - see pages 70-77.
The Byzantine Empire (or Byzantium) was the Roman Empire during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, centred on the capital of Constantinople. The state is also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire, primarily in the context of Late Antiquity, and especially while the Western Roman Empire was still maintained in Italy. Both "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" are historiographical terms applied in later centuries: throughout its existence the state was known simply as the Roman Empire and was the direct continuation of the Roman State, maintaining Roman state traditions. Byzantium is today distinguished from ancient Rome proper insofar as it was oriented towards Greek culture, characterised by Orthodox Christianity rather than Roman polytheism, and was predominantly Greek-speaking rather than Latin-speaking.
Most of Greece gradually became part of the Ottoman Empire in the 15th century. The Byzantine Empire, the successor to the ancient Roman Empire who ruled most of the Greek-speaking world for over 1100 years, had been fatally weakened since the sacking of Constantinople by the Latin Crusaders in 1204. The Ottoman advance into Greece was preceded by victory over the Serbs to its north. First the Ottomans won at 1371 on the Maritsa River — where the Serb forces were led by the King Vukasin Mrnjavcevic, the father of Prince Marko and the co-ruler of the last emperor from the Serbian Nemanjic dynasty. This was followed by another Ottoman victory in the 1389 Battle of Kosovo. With no further threat by the Serbs and the subsequent Byzantine civil wars, the Ottomans captured Constantinople in 1453 and advanced southwards into Greece, capturing Athens in 1458. The Greeks held out in the Peloponnese until 1460, and the Venetians and Genoese clung to some of the islands, but by 1500 most of the plains and islands of Greece were in Ottoman hands. The mountains of Greece were largely untouched, and were a refuge for Greeks to flee foreign rule and engage in guerrilla warfare. Cyprus fell in 1571, and the Venetians retained Crete until 1670. The Ionian Islands were only briefly ruled by the Ottomans (Kefalonia from 1479 to 1481 and from 1485 to 1500), and remained primarily under the rule of Venice. In 1821, the Greeks rose up against the Ottoman Empire. Following a protracted struggle, the autonomy of Greece was first recognized by the Great Powers (the United Kingdom, France, and Russia) in 1828.
From the Little Book of BIG Greek Lies
BIG Greek Lie # 1
by Risto Stefov
"Modern Greeks are direct descendents of the Ancient Greeks"
(The greatest victims of Greek lies are the Greeks themselves)
[NOTE: Our apologies to the Greek people if they find these articles offensive. Our objective here is NOT to create tension between the Macedonian and Greek people but rather to highlight the problem that exists within the Greek State and its institutions. As long as the Greek State denies our existence as Macedonians with rights and privileges, we will continue to publish these types of articles.]
How can a region in the Balkans where modern Greece is located today, which has been open to a multitude of invasions, conquests and settlements, remain homogeneous and untouched for two thousand seven hundred years? Ironically, as the Greeks claim, how can modern Macedonia, a region neighbouring modern Greece be so heterogeneous that it has completely lost its original identity? These are questions that every Greek should be asking!
Ever since Philip II of Macedonia conquered the ancient City States at the conclusion of the battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC, the region south of Olympus has been without borders and open to all kinds of invasions and barbarian settlements. THE BIG GREEK LIE: "Modern Greeks are direct descendents of the ancient Greeks"
There were no "Ancient Greeks" since the word "Greek" was not coined until after the Roman conquests, approximately 600 years after the establishment of the City States and approximately 150 years after they were conquered by the Macedonians. It is also well known that the ancient City States were never united politically and never established themselves as a single state. In fact they existed politically independent from one another and fought each other for economic dominance of the region.
The name "Greece" was imposed on the modern Greek Kingdom by the Great Powers Britain, France and Russia. Modern Greeks call themselves Hellenes (Ellines) and their state Hellas (Ellas). By using the name "Greek" to refer to both the ancient and modern people, the Greek state falsely implies descent for the modern Greeks from the ancients. By using the name "Greece" to refer to both the ancient and modern states, the Greek State is falsely implying;
(1) continuity between the ancient City States and modern Greece, and
(2) that there was some sort of political unity between the ancient City States themselves where one did not exist..
In reality the words "Greece" and "Greek" were popularized by modern 19th century writers. There are no ancient maps or references with the words "Greece". The Romans may have made some references to the ancient people living in Sicily as "Grecos" but they referred to the region south of Olympus as Achaia.
During the Ottoman era the people living south of Olympus called themselves Romeos (Romans). Greece is a newly created state which never existed before the 19th century. The Kingdom of Greece, occupying the region of Morea, present day Peloponnesus, was created for the first time in 1829. Between 1829 and 1912 the Greeks enlarged their territory to present day Greece, by conquering Epirus, Thessaly and 51% of Macedonia.
At its inception Greece stated out with a small population of less than one million people, most of whom were Albanians, Slavs and Vlahs with a small minority of other ethnicities. By the time Greece conquered Epirus and Thessaly, its population grew to three times its original size. In 1907 it registered a population of 2,600,000. After it conquered Macedonia and exchanged populations with Turkey, its population tripled. In 1928 Greece registered 6,200,000 people. 1,100,000 of them were Christians, refugees from Asia Minor.
After the Treaty of Lausanne in July 1923, and after the population exchanges with Turkey, Greece declared itself homogenous consisting of 100% pure Greeks with a very small Muslim but ethnically Greek population. It is estimated that after Macedonia was conquered, occupied and had some of its population evicted, more than one million Macedonians still remained and were included among the Greeks.
According to Greece however, there were no non-Greeks left in Macedonia after its population exchanges. Also, according to Greece, the ancient Macedonians were extinct, killed off by the Slavs around the 6th century AD during the so-called Slav invasions. So the question that begs to be asked here is, "What nationality were these million or so people who remained in Macedonia and became part of Greece?" Many Greeks would argue that they were Bulgarians!
If that were the case, then how can the modern Greeks claim purity and homogeneity if at least 16% of its population in 1928 was non-Greek? What about its Vlah, Slav, Albanian and Turkish elements? Clearly they are not Greeks, let alone being direct descendents of the ancient Greeks?
Even this small argument shows that there is something "fishy" about these Greek claims.
For over a century and a half Greek State institutions, organizations and individuals have been making unproven and unfounded allegations that the modern Greeks are direct descendents of the ancients. To this day they have shown no evidence to prove their claims. In fact the opposite is true. There is ample evidence that proves that this particular modern Greek claim is an outright BIG Greek lie.
This exact issue was tackled by Historian John Shea in chapter 4 of The Great Ethnic Mix of Greece, pages 77 to 96, in his book "Macedonia and Greece, The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation". Among other things, John Shea proves that even the ancient people were not homogeneous.
"It has been estimated that in classical times the number of slaves in Attica was roughly equal to the number of free inhabitants, or around 100,000. In Sparta there was an even greater proportion of slaves, and most of them, the helots, were Messenians. While the slaves of Athens were a wide racial mix and therefore less likely to unite on the basis of a common language, these Messenian helots of Sparta all spoke Greek, and had a kind of group self-consciousness. Thus they presented 'special problems of security for their Spartan masters, whose numbers were constantly on the decline.' Changes in the ethnic composition of Greek city-states are illustrated by the comments about the case of Piso. Piso, who had been the recipient of an unhelpful decision by a vote of the Athenian city assembly, 'made a violent speech in which he said that the latter-day Athenians had no right to identify themselves with the great Athenians of the days of Pericles, Demosthenes, Aeschylus, and Plato. The ancient Athenians had been extirpated by repeated wars and massacres and these were mere mongrels, degenerates, and the descendants of slaves. He said that any Roman who flattered them as if they were the legitimate heirs of those ancient heroes was lowering the dignity of the Roman name.' Such historical ideas make it clear that even two thousand years ago the notion of ethnic purity amongst the Greeks was difficult to sustain. The ethnic mix continued over the next two thousand years. As Nicol has observed, 'The ancient Greeks were, after all, of very mixed ancestry; and there can be no doubt that the Byzantine Greeks, both before and after the Slav occupation, were even more heterogenous'." (Pages 83 and 84, John Shea, Macedonia and Greece, The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation)
And there you have it!
THE TRUTH: The modern Greeks are not only NOT direct descendents of the ancients, but their Greekness is a myth, a modern 19th century creation.