I guess it's possible that the Ancient Greeks were made up. Unlikely but some believe it to be so on Historum.com which I've been banned from a few times.
There is room in history to make shit up, but no the Hellenes are not made up, and stories are generally remade as told to through time and telling. There is though Martin Bernal's "Black Athena" that stirred the ire of folks 35 years ago. Bernal's thesis discusses the perception of ancient Greece in relation to Greece's North African and West Asian neighbours, especially the ancient Egyptians and Phoenicians who, he believes, colonized ancient Greece. Bernal proposes that a change in the Western perception of Greece took place from the 18th century onward and that this change fostered a subsequent denial by Western academia of any significant Egyptian and Phoenician influence on ancient Greek civilization.
Black Athena has been heavily criticised by academics. They often highlight the fact that there is no archaeological or historical evidence whatsoever for ancient Egyptian colonies in mainland Greece or the Aegean Islands. Academic reviews of Bernal's work generally reject his heavy reliance on ancient Greek mythology, speculative assertions, and handling of archaeological, linguistic, and historical data. The book has also been accused that, by reopening the nineteenth-century discourse on race and origins, it has become part of the problem of racism rather than the solution that its author had envisioned. Bernal himself has been accused of pursuing political motives and enlisting Bronze Age Greece in an academic war against Western civilization.
No I don't seriously consider that the Hellenes were never either.
Not sure about Phoenecians as to me they rose at a similar period to the Greeks although of course the Greek alphabet is attributed to a Phoenician source. But to me it's obvious that the Greeks were very much influenced by both the earlier Mesopotamians & the Egyptyians. And that they made their Kouros naked in opposition to the Egyptian version and that the Greeks had pyramids indicates that although keen to differentiate themselves from they also drew from the Egyptians.
There was some controversy 15 years ago when DNA studies were becoming more common, I can't remember it exactly but it might have indicated that the Greeks were more black than we consider them to have been currently.
Indeed, translation is tricky and invention is not uncommon and in Antiquity frequently to make the point authors used famous names. Barnes wrote in his Companion to Aristotle pp. 10-11: "What did Andronicus [of Rhodes, 1st cen. B.C. editor of Aristotle's MSS,] do? How did his edition – how does our edition – differ from what Aristotle actually wrote? The answer, roughly put, is probably this: Andronicus himself composed the works which we now read. Jonathan Barnes, in his book Aristotle, one of Aristotle's ancient biographers remarks that "he wrote a large number of books which I have thought it appropriate to list because of his excellence in every field": there follows a list of 150 books. Curiously, the list does not include all of Aristotle's works. Indeed, it does not include his two most highly regarded works - Metaphysics and Nicomachean Ethics. Of all of the listed works, barely one-fifth (approx. 30) have survived.
Again, according to Barnes, most of the surviving works were peharps not intended to be read; it seems likely that the works that survive are made up of Aristotle's own lecture notes and not intended for public dissemination. The two works cited above, Metaphysics and Nicomachean Ethics, appear to be put together by later editors. According to Barnes, Nicomachean Ethics is evidently not a unitary work, and Metaphysics is "plainly" a set of essays rather than a continuous work.
Barnes supports his claims by noting that Aristotle's works are, for the most part, terse. "His arguments are consise. There are abrupt transitions, inelegant repetitions, and obscure allusions. Paragraphs of continuous exposition are set amongst staccato jottings. The language is spare and sinewy." These features strongly suggest the lecture notes interpretation.
I was reading a Substack (racking my brain to give credit, maybe at 3am I will recall LOL)
about the coining of sayings to *The Greeks* in order to get them into our heads as predictive.
Ones about war. Like peace is just a prelude to war. No I made that one up.
Quite a good notion of the Substacker author I thought.
I might get back to you on this.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/all-your-favourite-quotations-are-a-lie-part-1/
Here it is.
Okay, so not a Substack.
I guess it's possible that the Ancient Greeks were made up. Unlikely but some believe it to be so on Historum.com which I've been banned from a few times.
Some *ancient Greek* quotes are made up to give credibility to modern propaganda.
Wasn't thinking that the Ancient Greeks themselves were made up.
Yeah I know.
They posit a theory that the Greek stories are all actually from the spaces between Denmark and England. I wrote a ditty about something similar once.
-----------------
Briseis a little town in Laconia
Now a princess courtesy of Homer
The Greek Shakespeare
He who gave us Hamlet
And so it turns,
around and around
go we again.
There is room in history to make shit up, but no the Hellenes are not made up, and stories are generally remade as told to through time and telling. There is though Martin Bernal's "Black Athena" that stirred the ire of folks 35 years ago. Bernal's thesis discusses the perception of ancient Greece in relation to Greece's North African and West Asian neighbours, especially the ancient Egyptians and Phoenicians who, he believes, colonized ancient Greece. Bernal proposes that a change in the Western perception of Greece took place from the 18th century onward and that this change fostered a subsequent denial by Western academia of any significant Egyptian and Phoenician influence on ancient Greek civilization.
Black Athena has been heavily criticised by academics. They often highlight the fact that there is no archaeological or historical evidence whatsoever for ancient Egyptian colonies in mainland Greece or the Aegean Islands. Academic reviews of Bernal's work generally reject his heavy reliance on ancient Greek mythology, speculative assertions, and handling of archaeological, linguistic, and historical data. The book has also been accused that, by reopening the nineteenth-century discourse on race and origins, it has become part of the problem of racism rather than the solution that its author had envisioned. Bernal himself has been accused of pursuing political motives and enlisting Bronze Age Greece in an academic war against Western civilization.
No I don't seriously consider that the Hellenes were never either.
Not sure about Phoenecians as to me they rose at a similar period to the Greeks although of course the Greek alphabet is attributed to a Phoenician source. But to me it's obvious that the Greeks were very much influenced by both the earlier Mesopotamians & the Egyptyians. And that they made their Kouros naked in opposition to the Egyptian version and that the Greeks had pyramids indicates that although keen to differentiate themselves from they also drew from the Egyptians.
There was some controversy 15 years ago when DNA studies were becoming more common, I can't remember it exactly but it might have indicated that the Greeks were more black than we consider them to have been currently.
I've heard of Bernal and his thesis but havn't paid it any attention.
Indeed, translation is tricky and invention is not uncommon and in Antiquity frequently to make the point authors used famous names. Barnes wrote in his Companion to Aristotle pp. 10-11: "What did Andronicus [of Rhodes, 1st cen. B.C. editor of Aristotle's MSS,] do? How did his edition – how does our edition – differ from what Aristotle actually wrote? The answer, roughly put, is probably this: Andronicus himself composed the works which we now read. Jonathan Barnes, in his book Aristotle, one of Aristotle's ancient biographers remarks that "he wrote a large number of books which I have thought it appropriate to list because of his excellence in every field": there follows a list of 150 books. Curiously, the list does not include all of Aristotle's works. Indeed, it does not include his two most highly regarded works - Metaphysics and Nicomachean Ethics. Of all of the listed works, barely one-fifth (approx. 30) have survived.
Again, according to Barnes, most of the surviving works were peharps not intended to be read; it seems likely that the works that survive are made up of Aristotle's own lecture notes and not intended for public dissemination. The two works cited above, Metaphysics and Nicomachean Ethics, appear to be put together by later editors. According to Barnes, Nicomachean Ethics is evidently not a unitary work, and Metaphysics is "plainly" a set of essays rather than a continuous work.
Barnes supports his claims by noting that Aristotle's works are, for the most part, terse. "His arguments are consise. There are abrupt transitions, inelegant repetitions, and obscure allusions. Paragraphs of continuous exposition are set amongst staccato jottings. The language is spare and sinewy." These features strongly suggest the lecture notes interpretation.