The past is the present for future generations who do not know their history

We are Danubian culture bearers…

the Danube Bend

The Danube Bend

 on the Peebles side.

The river valleys which the Danubian occupied must have been relatively free of people; Mesolithic remains in the eastern and middle Danube Valley are very scarce, if not entirely absent.  We may therefore expect the remains of the Danubian immigrants to exhibit, without particular alteration, the physical characteristics of the population or populations from which they originated. The Danubian went into the Balkans then expanded across Central Europe. Their number were ten times that of the Mesolithic people. Danubian were the first Neolithic culture. Their population and movement created an Indo-European heartland as dictated by linguistic patterns.

Technology yet evolves to better establish definite rates of change for lexicostatistics (languages) and to determine the genotypes of ancient people from their palaeoserology (skeletal remains). And though the time is not yet; that time is just around the corner.

A prehistory by ethnic terms is by definition hypothetical. And history, as a branch of the biological sciences, must be mathematical – it is a constant that dna must be embraced. Through dna research barriers will be broken that every other facet of science has yet to reveal except in theory no matter the process, whether it be using language, culture, ethnicities, location, or archaeology as the target of study.

There are problems inherent in ancient history in terms of ecospheres, races, subraces and their boundaries defined as discontinuities in the environment. With that philosophy it is an either/or convention. That isolates the groups even though there are not physical boundaries preventing cross-pollination.

The littoral distribution of the Greeks early on (meaning before the fourth century B.C.) is a particularly striking example of an ecosphere. Their differing way of life created a social barrier as there was no physical barrier between the coastal people and the inland people. Among the peoples on the coastline, the differences theoretically appear to be just the amount of coastline they inhabited. Where the coastline indents seems to be an influence of groups of littoral communities to transform into an ecosphere.

Analysis using geographical manipulation of a number of areas within the Green Peninsula, the Aegean Island and Ionia with an extension up to Bosporus.

The Greeks originally initially occupied peninsular Greece and the Aegean Island then Cyrus. Beginning of the last millennium B.C. there occupations included Ionia, the Bosporus region, the mouth of the  Great Russian rivers, the southern Crimea and Crimean Bosporus, the heel and toe of Italy,  Campania and  Sicily. The fit is extremely good with the exception of Dalmatia and N Crimea which were never occupied by the Greeks.

These areas were mostly in the Carthaginians who were the dominant sea-power. And they, in geographical analysis, are reasonably well do centers of Carthaginian activity. So much has happened in history and the Greeks were a, if not the, major factor.

Emphasis on seafaring groups like the Phoenicians does not compute. There is scientifically ‘a lack of relationship’ in language and culture.The Phoenicians seem more like the people  of Syria and Lebanon. 

The central Greek zone proved to be stable as (part of) the largest Mediterranean littoral ecosphere. The most decisive change was in 1922. It was then that the Turks expelled the Ionian Greeks.

Next came the concept of a “natural frontier”. There was much conflict and many wars over the change from littoral ecospheres to ‘natural frontiers.’  With the ‘natural frontiers’ came simplicity. The frontiers means grouping by geographically easily recognizable features with the sea being the very best marker. This caused a conflict of interest between essentially ‘local control’ vs ‘centralized control’. ‘Local control’ was the precept of the littoral ecosphere while the ‘natural frontier’ was represented by ‘centralized’ control’. Relationships began to deteriorate.

With the advent of ‘natural frontiers’ comes the need to administrate. The need to administrate causes a need for a capital. A need for a capital causes a swell in population around the capital and then the metropolis is born. Groups of population like the Lydian Monarchy (Sardes metropolis), Phrygian kingdom, and the Roman London  formed metropolises.

Of note are the concepts that a state is more than its administration, more to a kingdom than its court, and more to a capital than its institutions.  Unity is the kingpin of the needed principles. The growth of the metropolis is the linchpin of the social change involved in the concept of unity. An everyday lesson for everyday people from this historical evidence is ‘caveat empor’ when groups espouse unity, to unify, to become one, or unison.

It is with the advent of the metropolis where ideology becomes concurrently exciting and dangerous. All of this relates to the world events of today even though it is ancient world history.

This concludes part one of a series on the history of our family; from ancient times to modern times. With this part, we started the ancient history of the family line where th dna test results left off, in ancient Greece.

Advertisements

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