THE "HELLENIZATION" OF EPIRUS DEBUNKED

1. INTRODUCTION

In this article, the phrase "Hellenization of Epirus" will be used to refer to the scenario according to which the ancient Epirotic tribes were originally Illyrians, who later became Hellenized. This theory, although not accepted by the majority of modern academia, has been supported by various scholars ¹, who however base their thesis on controversial "evidence" while ignoring less doubtful facts. Today, this specific view of Epirotic history is mostly supported and promoted by Albanians ² whose part of national mythic narrative is claiming linear connection to the ancient Illyrians and dehellenizing anything Greek concerning the ancient history of their current lands.

2. NO EVIDENCE OF EPIRUS AND EPIROTES BEING ILLYRIAN

Taking a look at ancient Greek literature, anyone could easily realise that Epirus was never classified as part of "Illyria" and its inhabitantants were never described as part of the people known as "Illyrians". On the other hand, the region of Epirus and its tribes are clearly separated from the Illyrian world. Strabo (63 BC – c. 24 AD) reports that Via Egnatia was the border between Illyria and Epirus:

«In travelling this road from the neighbourhood of Epidamnus and Apollonia, on the right hand are the Epirotic nations situated on the coast of the Sicilian Sea, and extending as far as the Gulf of Ambracia; on the left are the Illyrian mountains…» ³

Simiralry, Pausanias (c. 110 – c. 180) writes in a more understandably that 

«Illyrians inhabit the coast of the Ionian Sea, north of Epirus» ⁴

Appian, while describing the "Illyrian" territories , records a southern boundary with Chaonia and Thesprotia, where ancient Epirus began south of the river Aous (Vijose) ⁵, as does Pseudo-Scylax in his "Periplous" around 380-360 BC ⁶. The proponents of the "Hellenization" theory have suggested that this distinction between Illyrians and Epirotes is a result of the Hellenization of the latter, which according to Arnold Toynbee, started taking place around 429 BC ⁷. This is however extremely doubtful, especially when earlier ancient authors like Hecataeus of Miletus also highlighted the contiguity of the Chaonians to the Illyrian people living north of the Acroceraunian Mountains ⁸.

3. THE USE OF THE TERM "BARBAROI"

On the other hand, what does not end the discussion at this point is the fact that certain ancient writers seem to describe the ancient Epirotes as "barbarians". A good question to ask here is who are these barbarians, if the Epirotes were distinguished from their Illyrian neighbours? Many like to answer by taking the designation of the "barbarian" as a non-biased ethnolinguistic feature ancient writers attributed. In reality, passages where Epirotes and other Greek peoples (e.g. Macedonians) are presented as "barbarians" are either biased or misinterpreted, as linguist Panagiotis Filos notes:

"Nonetheless, such views, which largely rely on some subjective ancient testimonies, are not supported by the earliest (and not only) epigraphic texts" [In: "Studies in Ancient Greek Dialects: From Central Greece to the Black Sea", n.18]

Anyone who is familiar with ancient Greek literature knows that in many instances writers subjectively used to discriminate other Greek tribes. A great example is the rise of Athenian nationalism and the "racial" conflict between Dorians and Athenians/Ionians during the 5th and 4th centuries BC. During that period, Athenians promoted the myth of "autochthony", proudly claiming that they are born from the land they inhabit. Isocrates boasted that Athenians were pure-blooded, unlike "others" — meaning the Dorians — who were race-mixed migrants (Panygericus, 24). A similar concept is presented in Plato's Menexenus (245d), where Athenians appear as the only real Hellenes in contrast with other Greek tribes whose mythological progenitor was of foreign origin. And while Athenian writers presented themselves as the only real Greeks and Dorians as barbarians, the Dorian authors like Herodotus presented their own group as the real Hellenes and the Athenians/Ionians as "Hellenes" of barbarian Pelasgic origin ⁹. That is why the Athenian Thucydides chooses to describe the Dorians ¹⁰ of Epirus and Northwestern Greece as barbarians: 

«The Hellenic troops with him consisted of the Ambraciots, Leucadians, and Anactorians, and the thousand Peloponnesians with whom he came; the barbarian of a thousand Chaonians, who, belonging to a nation that has no king, were led by Photios and Nicanor, the two members of the royal family to whom the chieftainship for that year had been confided. With the Chaonians came also some Thesprotians, like them without a king, some Molossians and Atintanians led by Sabylinthos, the guardian of king Tharrhyps who was still a minor, and some Parrrhavaeans, under their King Oroedos, accompanied by a thousand Orestians, subjects of King Antiochos and placed by him under the command of Oroedos» ¹¹.

In contrast to the Athenian Thucydides, the Dorian Herodotus classifies Epirus as Greece and Epirotes as Greeks:

«Then all the Greeks who were proud of themselves and their country came as suitors, and to that end Cleisthenes had them compete in running and wrestling contests. From Italy came Smindyrides of Sybaris, son of Hippocrates, the most luxurious liver of his day (and Sybaris was then at the height of its prosperity), and Damasus of Siris, son of that Amyris who was called the Wise. These came from Italy; from the Ionian Gulf, Amphimnestus son of Epistrophus, an Epidamnian; he was from the Ionian Gulf. From Aetolia came Males, the brother of that Titormus who surpassed all the Greeks in strength, and fled from the sight of men to the farthest parts of the Aetolian land. [3] From the Peloponnese came Leocedes, son of Phidon the tyrant of Argos, that Phidon who made weights and measures for the Peloponnesians1 and acted more arrogantly than any other Greek; he drove out the Elean contest-directors and held the contests at Olympia himself. This man's son now came, and Amiantus, an Arcadian from Trapezus, son of Lycurgus; and an Azenian from the town of Paeus, Laphanes, son of that Euphorion who, as the Arcadian tale relates, gave lodging to the Dioscuri, and ever since kept open house for all men; and Onomastus from Elis, son of Agaeus. These came from the Peloponnese itself; from Athens Megacles, son of that Alcmeon who visited Croesus, and also Hippocleides son of Tisandrus, who surpassed the Athenians in wealth and looks. From Eretria, which at that time was prosperous, came Lysanias; he was the only man from Euboea. From Thessaly came a Scopad, Diactorides of Crannon; and from the Molossians, Alcon» ¹² 

[Alcon the Molossian Epirote listed among the Greeks]

 

«If the Phoenicians did in fact carry away the sacred women and sell one in Libya and one in Hellas, then, in my opinion, the place where this woman was sold in what is now Hellas, but was formerly called Pelasgia, was Thesprotia; and then, being a slave there, she established a shrine of Zeus under an oak that was growing there; for it was reasonable that, as she had been a handmaid of the temple of Zeus at Thebes , she would remember that temple in the land to which she had come. After this, as soon as she understood the Greek language, she taught divination; and she said that her sister had been sold in Libya by the same Phoenicians who sold her» ¹³  

[Thesprotia classified as part of Hellas and a woman of foreign origin learning the Greek language among the Thesprotians].

This "racial" conflict we mentioned before is, therefore, perfectly reflected in the historical works and Panagiotis Filos is proven to be correct in calling ancient testimonies like those of Thucydides subjective. It seems that, in the eyes of Thucydides, Northwestern Greeks did not reach the cultural standards of democratic Athens. This could be understood by the fact that, while characterising Chaonians and Thesprotians as barbarians, Thucydides did not forget to mention right after that both of them «belong to a nation that has no king». He does something similar when describing the "barbarian" Aetolians as living «in unfortified villages», or when portraying the Eurytānes as having an «incomprehensible speech» and being «eaters of raw meat». Jonathan Hall correctly calls Thucydides descriptions "pseudo-ethnographic" and concludes that Western Greek tribes were considered as Hellenes manques and not as complete foreigners.

The same thing can be observed in the works of Strabo, who also calls Epirotes "barbarians". The ancient geographer, however, distinguishes them from the neighbouring - also barbaric - Illyrians. If we consider his characterizations for the Epirotes as ethnological evidence, then it should be supposed that Epirotes were not Greeks or Illyrians, but a separate ethnicity. This is of course not supported by any other kind of evidence. In the same way as Thucydides, Strabo prefers calling tribes of a primitive way of life "barbarians". It is more clear when the ancient author calls the inhabitants of Dodona - the spiritual center of the ancient Greek world - "barbarians" because they "do not wash their feet and sleep on the ground": 

"With respect to Dodona, Homer clearly intimates that the people who lived about the temple were barbarians, from their mode of life, describing them as persons who do not wash their feet, and who sleep on the ground. Whether we should read Helli, with Pindar, or Selli, as it is conjectured the word existed in Homer, the ambiguity of the writing does not permit us to affirm confidently. Philochorus says, that the country about Dodona was called, like Eubœa, Hellopia; for these are the words of Hesiod, “‘There is a country Hellopia, rich in corn-fields and pastures; at its extremity is built Dodona.’” ¹⁴

In the case of Strabo too, "barbarian" is not a characterization that could be considered as important ethnological evidence and Panagiotis Filos is proven to be correct once more. 

4. WERE THERE PEOPLE PREDATING GREEKS IN EPIRUS?

The answer to this question is positive. In the aforementioned excerpt of Herodotus' "Histories" about Thesprotia ¹³, it is stated that the region was formerly called "Pelasgia" and then Hellas. However, that was the case for the rest of Greece. According to Strabo 

«Almost every one is agreed that the Pelasgi were an ancient race spread throughout the whole of Greece, but especially in the country of the Æolians near to Thessaly»¹⁵. 

Similarly to Herodotus, the ancient geographer believed that the Epirotic tribes were of Pelasgian origin:

«many have likewise asserted that the nations of the Epirus are Pelasgic, because the dominions of the Pelasgi extended so far» ¹⁵.

While both Herodotus and Strabo know the history of Epirus and also are aware about the existence of the neighbouring Illyrians, none of them ever recorded them as the original inhabitants of Epirus. They both agree that Pelasgians are the only people predating Greeks in Epirus and the rest of Greece. Therefore, it could in no way be supported that the Epirotes were Hellenized Illyrians, when the so-called Pelasgians were the only recorded Pre-Greek population in the history of the region.

5. CONCLUSION

The evidence presented strongly challenges the notion that the Epirotic tribes were merely Hellenized Illyrians. Not only is there no substantial reason to support this hypothesis, but the available historical and linguistic data actively refute it. Ancient sources consistently distinguish the Epirotes from the Illyrians, with no records identifying the former as part of the latter. Although some ancient authors described the Epirotes as barbarians, they were more frequently regarded as one of the oldest Hellenic peoples—an integral part of the Greek world ¹⁶. Aside from the semi-mythical Pelasgians, no other ethnic group apart from the Greeks is recorded as inhabiting Epirus, mirroring the demographic patterns observed throughout ancient Greece. Moreover, recent finds suggest that Epirus was part of the Greek linguistic world, with Epirotes having their own dialect of ancient Greek ¹⁷. Therefore, based on the historical and archaeological evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that Epirus was no less Greek than any other region of Greece.

____________________

References:

¹ cf. eg. Witczak 1995, Toynbee 1969

² John Wilkes, The Illyrians, p. 104

³ Strabo 7.7.5

⁴ Pausanias, 4.35.5

⁵ John Wilkes, The Illyrians, p. 69

⁶ Nicholas Hammond, in: The Cambridge Ancient History: The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., Vol. III, part 3, p. 284

⁷ Arnold Toynbee, Some Problems of Greek history, p. 110

⁸ Sandro de Maria, Lorenzo Manicini in: Politics, Territory and Identity in Ancient Epirus, p.202

⁹ cf. Hdt. 1.56-1.57 , 8.44.1

¹⁰ "Dorians" in the broader sense of "Northwestern Greeks"

¹¹ 2.80.5-6

¹² 6.126-127

¹³ Herodotus, 2.56

¹⁴ Strabo, 7.7

¹⁵ Strabo, 5.2.4

¹⁶  Sasel Kos, Portolano Adriatico, p.14

¹⁷ cf. Irad Malkin, The Returns of Odysseus, pp. 142-143