Ancient and Archaeology听 permalink
How Greek were the Macedonians ?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by Xenos5 (U1814603) on Wednesday, 6th February 2008
Nik
You suggested a new thread for this topic, and made some excellent points I thought, about the Thessalians and about the Romantic paradigm of the polis and the demos.
Perhaps we could say that a binary Greek/not-Greek distinction is of little use here ? Perhaps we could say there is a large grouping of cities and cultures to be considered, and some could be considered 'closely grouped' and thers could be considered 'out-liers' ?
Perhaps we could say that while Epirus resembled its eastern neighbour in some respects, it also looked south to Acarnania and Aetolia. Thessalians could be considered Greek, certainly, but with as you say some distinct characteristics which put them towards the end of the spectrum ?
You seem to rest a lot on the Olympic participation argument. Can you tell me more about this ? Are we sure this was not a case of 'I see myselkf as Greek, and I want to take part IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDRED Greek'; and he was not to be refused, because of his military potential and Philip's recent moves ? In other words, does particpation by Alexander in the Olympcs rally prove he was Greek, or does it, on the contrary, prove that he was desperate to assert that he was Greek which he woudl otherwise not have been considered?
Regards,
Xenos -
Message 2
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 7th February 2008
Hi Xenos5,
I'd be interested to know how many overseas colonies Macedonia spawned, as the more readily accepted Greek city states had colonies ranging over a vast area from the Black Sea to the west of the Mediterranean. As far as I know, in the 5th century BC, Macedonia wasn't completely land-locked, although admittedly this could have been a different case during the period when the city states were sending out hordes of colonists in the 8th century BC.
In other words, does particpation by Alexander in the Olympcs realy prove he was Greek, or does it, on the contrary, prove that he was desperate to assert that he was Greek which he would otherwise not have been considered?听
Similarly, didn't the Emperor Nero participate in them in AD67?
Cheers,
RF -
Message 3
Posted by Volgadon (U10843893) on Thursday, 7th February 2008
I've always had the impression that the Macedonians wanted desperately to be respectable like their southern neighbours, but those latter stuck their noses up at them.
Poor country cousin syndrome. -
Message 4
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 7th February 2008
Xenos thank you for opening this discussion. Apart from the fact that I am Macedonian and that inherently interests me I think it is an excellent opportunity to discuss on an issue that can actually aid us in our regard over other historical issues regarding culture, ethnicity, tribal background etc.
I most certainly do not rest on the argument of the Olympics. I mean how many arguments do we have for Thessalians, Aetolians or Achaians? But the Olympics is a very clear one: It is true that many 100% Greek states at times were not accepted for this or the other reason... I remember the example of Pamphylie in Minor Asia, while Greek it had a name that meant "All-tribes" hence it was rejected merely by that name. But there is absolutely no case of non-Greek states succeeding in convinving the judges to participate in the games. The first were the Romans and it is noteworthy that even as late as then and despite Roman being the absolute conquerors of the region they had to justify their participation on the basis of their greek name and the co-foundation of the city by several Dorian Greek families (i.e. patricians claimed to derive from these Dorian families and thus Romans should have the right to participate).
But since the law for participation was to be a Greek (free and not slave) citizen of a recognised Greek state (either independent or dependent) there is no case that Alexander I, back in 478 A.D. (if I remember correctly the year), a king of a poor backwards state in the north, ex-ally of the Persians and incapable of being of any great geostrategic importance to any of the rest of the Greek states... how on earth could he had been accepted to participate if he AND his state had been Greek just like any other? Had he been just a foreigner or a Greek ruling over foreigners and no matter if himself would try would you think that the rest had any superimposing reason to permit him participate in the games? Were they forced by this little powerless kingdom? Did they need his support in anything? Well absolutely not. Athenians controlled the region through their allies in Chalchidiki (Macedonians were their enemies!), Thessalians closed their access to the south (they were their enemies) and Epirots had varying feelings of frienship (due to tribal relations) and animosity (due to border pressure).
I really cannot imagine of any other explanation other than that Macedonians were as Greek as anyone else.
Now regarding their local culture, well I would say what is the case of Aetolians, Akarnanians, Eyrytaneans, Thessalians... not to mention Spartans, a state culturally 2 worlds apart from the rest of Greeks. These were all Greeks and the proof that one nation when living under different geostrategic conditions could evolve into different directions - it is not that Greeks were anyhow DNA-destined to live in city-states, democracies-oligarchies, discuss on philosophy and sciences and fight in tight formations with spears and shields. These ideas were largely the by-product of 19th century world and history viewing. -
Message 5
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 8th February 2008
Hi Xenos05,
I brought into work my copy of "The Greeks Overseas" by John Boardman (no relation to Stan) to check on the Macedonian colonies. It doesn't list any in the index (which to be honest I was a bit surprised about), but in the section on Illyria, Macedonia and Thrace it says:
Not the least difficulty is the problem of knowing where to draw the line between Greek and non-Greek in the Balkans in various periods. In the days before passports it was probably not of great importance. Illyrians and Thracians at least could be treated as thoroughgoing barbarians. The Macedonians were a borderline case, but the Macedonian royal family had to invoke a largely mythical family tree connecting themselves with the old royal family of Argos; and Alexander the Great was hard put to it in his attempt to justify his ambitions as champion of the Greeks against the barbarian east.听
Macedonia seems to have been part Greek in its culture in the early Iron age, but there are some objects from this area which have seemed to many to point rather to close connections with the north...听
SOURCE: "The Greeks Overseas" John Boardman (1964, 1973) Pgs 234-235.
I'd expect Macedonia to absorb some culture from it's neighbouring states simply by osmosis, never mind the usual trade and interstate relations. To me, this would be natural and does not imply in any way that they were Greek - for example, wearing a funny hat like Alexander wouldn't make me a Macedonian...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 6
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 8th February 2008
Rainbow, who said Macedonians did not have relations with the north. That was 100% natural. As it was for Ionians in Minor Asia who at places even spoke Ionian Greek with a heavy... Phrygian accent. Dorians in South Italy had very often close relations with the Italic neighbours, much closer than what Macedonians had with their northern neighbours with whom most often had difficult relations rather than easy ones. But that cannot imply anything more than that.
-
Message 7
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 8th February 2008
Hi E_Nik,
We probably both agree that to the north of Macedonia were barbarians. We probably both agree that to the south of Macedonia were Greeks. The point for choosing that quote was to show that Macedonian culture appears to have benn influenced from the Greeks to the south and the Barbarians to the north.
As it was for Ionians in Minor Asia who at places even spoke Ionian Greek with a heavy... Phrygian accent.听
Speaking of Phrygians, on the subject of painted Macedonian pottery of the 8th century, the same book says:
...[it] is in a geometric style which recalls Greek work of the 8th century but is far closer to the wares of Phrygia in Asia Minor, both in this period and, for all we can as yet tell, earlier. This broaches problems of the sources of the Phrygians, and of references to Phrygians in the Macedonia-Thrace area. This 'bridge' across from Europe to Asia saw so much passage and mingling of peoples that the archeological record of the area is one of the most difficult to understand.听
SOURCE: "The Greeks Overseas" John Boardman (1964, 1973) Pg 235.
Is it possible that the "...much passage and mingling of peoples..." may have led to bigotry against the Macedonians from the Greeks to the south?
Cheers,
RF
p.s. Do you know of any Macedonian colonies? I'm not trying to catch you out by saying "they can't be Greek without colonies" - I'm genuinely interested. -
Message 8
Posted by Xenos5 (U1814603) on Friday, 8th February 2008
Hello again Nik
Yes, I understadn and agree with a lot of what you're saying here. It must be right that there is a wide variation amongst those cultures which are readily accepted as Greek, no questions asked (eg Spartans, Thessalians).
And I understand better your example of Alexander (I assume you meant 478 BC, not AD ?)
But I think a lot of questions remain. The questions RF raises are interesting.
But what about the points I made before, about the portrayal of Mecedonia in Greek literature ? Take the 主播大秀r example. We know that the list of cities in the 'roll-call' of the Greek fleet was added to anachornistically un til at least the 6th Century BC. So why no mention of the Macedonians ?
And why did the Macedonian kings invent a Greek lineage for themselves if there was no point to prove about their 'Greekness' ? -
Message 9
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 9th February 2008
Hi Zenos and Rainbow... well I will try to cater for two of your questions (Macedonians+colonies and Macedonian king lineage), since I find in these two some common ground to talk.
If I am not mistaken 主播大秀r indeed makes talk of Macedonians, using however not the name MAKEDONES but the name MAKEDNOI (ES, OI are plural endings of names, oi is pronounced as 'ee'). Makedni was the tribe living in the area in Mycenaean times and is mostly regarded as the archetypal tribe living in modern western Macedonia (close to Epirus) from which Dorians and Macedonians srpung (and also I think certain Aeolians like the Magnetes who went in Thessalia). One may say that there is no absolute proof to that but then on the other hand judging from the landscape Dorians had absolutely no other place that they could have originated (Dorians did not use much of boats back then!)!
The fact that the Makedni did not participate in the campaign is not a sign of non-Greekness, I mean Dorians - the tribe that defined Greekness in ancient time - did not participate in the Troyan wars, 主播大秀r talks abotu Achaians, not about Greeks. And it was natural that they did not participate as they did not have a naval force (I will come back to that a bit down talking on Macedonians and colonies).
Now, back in Mycenaean times the Makedni were consisting of several tribes that lived in different mini-kingdoms often facing inter-tribal war situations. It seems that by late archaic times they united under a more prominent royal family that claimed ancestry from the Heraclidians (descendants of Hercules). While Hercules was probably not of Dorian ancestry (the myth existed before their descend), the Dorians called themselves the Heraclidians. Since Dorians (most probably) descended from the ancient Makedni, at least back in those early archaic times they retained some connection with their northern ancestral lands (the distance is not very big afterall). Hence, the myth of Perdikkas talks about one of them that ascended back in Macedonia and took in charge of the lands. Hence, the myth of the royal family descending from the Heraclidians.
Indeed as you say, the whole story seems as if Macedonian kings tried 'to justify' or 'to explain' in order to avoid being called 'villageois' or even worse 'barbarians' by their political enemies like Demosthenis. However, the truth is that they simply mentioned it as their genealogy and not to explain anything at all. And that geneaology could be true, it is not irrational to imagine a royal man coming back to the ancestral lands and claiming the throne of the area and uniting the lands there. When Alexander I mentioned it it was when he was accused in the Olympics only because people accused himself of being related to the Persian royal family. Funnily he did not have to make a myth about his people, the Macedonians - however we all know that to participate in the games you had to be Greek yourself but also representing a Greek state.
Now, why Macedonians did not have much fond of the sea or did not feel the need to make colonies (obviously not a measure for their ethnicity). It is striking that other Greeks like Aetolians who had more coastline had no huge navies... imagine how much Macedonians that were most of the times without coastline...
To understand this one has to see the map. If you open a map of Modern Greece (to aid us with locations) you will see the strange shape of this land. Now, in modern times Greeks define Macedonia as being from the region around the cities of Grevena (my grandfather's place) and Florina up to the region of Kavala and Drama (near Xanthi that falls in Thrace). However, other people had at times other ideas, e.g. Bulgarians or others could raise it up to cover vast areas up to modern day Serbia (Kosovo etc.). Funnily Byzantines described these lands as the "Thessaloniki region" and used the name of Macedonia for ... neighbouring coastal Thrace including lands from Modern day Bulgaria in the north (hence the Macedonian Imperial family actually came from Thrace (well Basilius had also some Armenian ancestry)!
The truth is that the original Macedonian kingdom was the surrounding area north of Olympus (including the holy mountain). It was located indeed from the region of the cities of Grevena and Florina (actually including a thin stripe of land of some 10-15km into FYROM) and it reached in the east roughly around the region around the city of Kilkis just north of Thessaloniki or perhaps a bit further.
One would say, well there is much of coast there. Well, there was not. First all of Chalkidiki was taken early on by southern colonists - and it was not so much the three peninsulas but also inner mountainous Chalkidiki where the gold mines where located! Hence, Macedonians were losing some 80% of the coast of the place. On the eastern part of Chalkidiki and up to western Thrace also the place was largely controlled by the colonies of southern cities.
But what about the Thermaicos bay (bay of Thessaloniki). Well, as you see there is on its western side the river of Axios, forming the valley of Axios. Today it is a nice valley and one of the best lands for cultivation in a generally dry Greece, but the shape of this land has been shaped only some 70 years ago when the government decided to dry up the numerous swamps that existed in the area to save it from the endemic malaria that killed people for centuries.
Back in ancient times the river had not deposited yet its material so south hence the sea reached into the cities of Veroia and Pella. Pella was the new capital of the MAcedonian kings and was built as a port actually in their effort to be more close to the sea. However, if by Roman times these coast was already on the verge of being closed we can imagine that the swamp-ification of the area was already on since ancient, perhaps archaic times, a fact that was not at all welcoming the flourishing of a naval industry in the area.
However, the bigger problem was the colonists in Chalkidiki. They controlled all sea access and commerce of the area and their constant concern was to maintain others in the inland especially referring to Macedonians. Macedonians really took up only when they cleared of with these colonies that for so long directly or indirectly hindered their developpment.
But the absence of a strong navy was not the only reason why Macedonians were not interested in colonies. Another one was the fact that Macedonians were rarely faced with over-population problems. Being in almost constant wars with their northern Paionian and Dardanian neighbours (probably of Thraecian stock or equally probably of Greekothraecian stock) and other Illyrian tribes in the northwest their populations could never augment spectacularly to push for colonising other lands - if they had the need for new lands the first thing they would try would be to push further north the Paionians and the Dardanians or push to the east the whatever colonies or other tribes existed in the area. Hence, Macedonians till Philips time never created any colonies. However, during Philips times the kingdom met with a great expansion, the increased security had a positive impact in the population also, then during Alexanders' campaign they obviously created many cities in the Asian east and most of these cities were colonised primarily by Macedonians (it is another thing if now we prefer to make talk in general about 'Greek colonists').
I do not know if I answered the questions expertly, I would like to hear of your views. -
Message 10
Posted by Xenos5 (U1814603) on Saturday, 9th February 2008
Hi Nik
I'd say it certainly does answer the questions expertly !
You clearly know far more about the subject than I, for one, so I am rather reduced to the position of enquiring student rather than debating partner.
However, I would pick you up on a couple of details for further examination. Thank you for answering my questoion about 主播大秀r. But I don't quite follow two of your assertions about 'him'. Firstly, you say
"主播大秀r talks about Achaians, not about Greeks"
But in fact he often talks about Achaeans and Hellenes, sometimes in the same stanza.
And then you say
"And it was natural that they did not participate as they did not have a naval force".
But nor did the Arcadians, and they are sepcificically mentioned, even with an explanation of how they acquired their ships, as they are, as 主播大秀r says, land-locked.
These are two minor points, but as I say I'm ignorant of most of the materila you are explaining, so I can't relaly challenge it. But when I spot a couple of things I do think are not quite right, it makes me question a little some of your other assertions.
Still - very interesting, thank you.
X -
Message 11
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Sunday, 10th February 2008
Hi E-Nik,
And I am only asking because I don't know, did the Macedonians support Xerxes or the allied Greek polis during the 2nd Persian war? Or was it considered no concern of theirs?
Regards, P. -
Message 12
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 11th February 2008
Xenos, I am not any expert, it just happens I come from this region and I know 2-3 things more. Had I been from Colchester, Lyon or Mexico city I would know more about the respective region rather than about the geological evolution of S.E. Europe!
I am not sure if 主播大秀r talks about Achaians and Greeks interchangeably. I mean, he mentions the name Hellas only to describe a small insignificant city in central Greece and not as an ethnic name for all these people. The name Hellenes was generalised later than the times of 主播大秀r (8th century B.C. i.e. at least 400 years later than that war) and the name included necessarily Dorians (a tribe that did not participate in the campaign). 主播大秀r is not conclusive at all. The truth is that in his poem he does not make even a distinction between Trojans and Achaians - and it might not be a "poetic allowance" since he goes into effort to make the distinction between Troyans and other inner Minor Asian tribes, I think Phrygians (whose language we know that was not that far away from Greek), leaving some ground to modern analysts to assume that Trojans of that time could be possibly as well another Greek tribe (Minor Asian western coast was already colonised by Mycenaeans). Let's not forget that 主播大秀r's poem was not at all about a "panhellenic" campaign: it was not even the story of this military campaign! The main story was the argument between great leader Agamemnon and great warrior chieftain Achiles! All the rest of the story about the campaign is given in flashbacks! The "panhellenic" thingie came much later under the light of the Lydian/Median/Persian expansion, but back in Mycenaean times this campaign did not have this "colour" and it could be as well another extended inter-tribal war (or if not, a war of cousin tribes that could communicate without the need for interpreters for the basics).
But Xenos you are right in pinpointing that the fact that Macedonians did not have a fleet is not a valid explanation for not sending an army - it would be much more simple if they would just walk over from Macedonia to Thrace and then pass with rented boats to the other side to reach Troy. But then thinking twice about it Macedonians were most probably not even a kingdom back then, not to mention they would not have any army of much need to Achaians, not to mention that all the way to Troy there were numerous enemy tribes, most of them probably allied to Troyans - do not forget that 9 out of 10 years Mycenaeans spent it in raiding the numerous Troyan allies on the Minor Asian as well as European sides. Above all Macedonians even if they had some more army to spend they would not dare leave their place vulnerable to attacks from people from the north. Achaians in the south had most probably (well, obviously) made alliances that guaranteed some peace back in their homes, Macedonians could most possibly not do that with the numerous and various tribes of the inner lands of the peninsula. Also do not forget that when we talk about Macedonians of Mycenaean times we most probably talk abour Dorians (I am more or less convinced since other possibilities are too 'thin', but lets leave some space for arguments).
Priscilla, Macedonians of the early 5th century were still in ugly shape. Not only they had to face continuous wars with their Greek western, southern and mainly eastern neighbours and of course facing constant raids from the northern Thraecian and Illyrian tribes but like any other Greeks they had also to face the traditional inner strife. Kings were no more than the first among equal landowner aristocrats whose mumbo-jumbo about "traditional values", aiming at retaining their powers of course, was highly responsible for the backwardness of the region and always in contrast with the genuine effort of the royal family to progress.
Hence, when Persians came in they just took over the region like they had done earlier with so many other Greek states in Minor Asia. However one has to to note that Macedonians did not willingly ally to Persians like Thessalians and Thebans (and so many other Greek states that allied directly or.... "allied by neutrality"). They were simply forced in. Interestingly Persians (who of course were not blind to the fact that Macedonians were Greeks), highly esteemed king Alexander I (an exceptional man) and used him as a diplomat in their talks with the Greeks - it is interesting they did not take a Thessalian or a Theban! It is also intersting that king Alexander during his talk with the Greeks in the battle of Thermopylae, while of course proposes surrender in line with Persian policy, he seems to speak honestly out of his heart and shows genuine care about "the fate of the Greek ethnos" and the fact that it would be better to survive in slavery than to perish for ever. It is very interesting that in that aspect, Alexander I showed more care about the fate of Greeks than others and that he seems to regard all Greeks in a more unified approach than Athenians or Spartans who even in these moments could hardly sit down and exchange two sensible sentences... -
Message 13
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 11th February 2008
However, going back to our initial issue "How Greek were Macedonians" (an expression that simplifies things to aid our discussion), I retain a nice phrase-question that Rainbow used a bit earlier in the other thread: "Where do we draw the line between Greek tribes and non-Greek tribes"?
One answer would be obvious, based on the participation of the Olympics where only Greeks cuold participate and under very strict (nazi-like) control, hence since Macedonians were recognised as Greeks by other Greeks of that time we have no reason to suppose otherwise. Greeks of the early 5th century would never "add" foreigners in their "team", quite the opposite they "disowed" often 100% Greek populations for the most fantastic reasons... e.g. Thoucydides wanted to call Eurytaneans (living just next to the Delphi) barbarians because they were 'too villagers' for his taste!!! However, contrary to 19th century perceptions based on a few misinterpreted Hellenistic approaches (Hellenistic Greeks were rarely less racist than their ancestors), in 5th century the term "Hellenes" was an ethnic term and not a "cultural" one. We know of so many cities of foreigners or even of mixed populations that were 110% Greek in their culture but were not accepted as Greeks by others - Macedonians though treated as the "poor relative" were universally accepted as Greeks apart the occasional venomous political enemies like Demosthenis (why though we forget about Aeshinis who dreamt of Philip uniting Greeks? Aeshinis had half of Athens with him on that!!!. But even Demosthenis did not try to convince Athenians that Macedonians were not Greeks by nationality and origins, but aimed only at accusing Philip as a "barbaric king" (mostly focusing in his every-day habits), his accusations being of the most ridiculous ones (especially when he says "Philip is nothing else than a barbarian, no! even worse! he is worse than a barbarian... well, personally I have never found a better proof of Philip's Greekness!!! Ehehe!
However, going back to the "draw a line" issue, let me remind you that the kingdom of Macedonia up to the 4th century was not a huge region, it was the lands just north of mountain Olympus actually covering the Western and Central Macedonian region of the modern Greek state including a mere 10-15km stripe into the modern FYROM state and virtually nothing from modern Bulgarian state. Hence, nothing like including half S.E. Europe from Hungary to Aegean like so many have wrongly imagined out of ignorance or ingeniously proposed to forward their own politics. Had we included lands of modern FYROM and Bulgaria and Serbia (e.g. Kosovo) under the term Macedonian then naturally in these lands most tribes were probably not Greek (we have no final proof of what these were) but these were not Macedonians of course! It is as logical as extending the name of Indian Maharastra region up to China and next day sayind that Maharastrians are not Indians!
Once, we clarify that then analysis becomes easier. It is true that Macedonians along with Epirots were the two historic Greek states of the "motherland" (i.e. non-colonies) that were in more direct contact with "barbarians" in the north. For that reason they were regarded as the "shield of Hellas" by Stravo (whose opinion some avoid to take when he wrote the geography of the Greek region! - wonder why!). It is true that the frontier of the Macedonian kingdom went back and front many times in all directions. We know that in west, south and east Macedonians faced Greek states and in the north they faced the tribes of mainly Paeonians who were a small cushion between Macedonians and their main enemies, the Dardanians. They also faced the raids of Illyrians who were coming from the northwest (also enemies of Epirots) and Thraecians coming from the northeast usually with a raiding attitude.
So we have two specific names of northern tribes, Paeonians and Dardanians and two general, Thraecians and Illyrians. All these tribes were called "barbarians" by Macedonians, however often with the same levelling attitude that some other Greeks used the term. Thraecians and Illyrians were never a specific ethnic entity. These are more or less terms resembling the term Celtic in western Europe, comprising as different populations as in modern day central Albania and Slovenia/Austria for Illyrians and Phrygia (modern day central Turkey) and Dacia (modern day central Roumania).
When talking specifically about Dardanians, one has to notice their Thraecian name, linked to the Dardanelles passage (near Troy), the myth says they came from there - or one could suggest the opposite. Most probably they were of Thraecian origins but this does not help us at all. Being so close to Macedonians, what culture did they have? What language did they speak? Well, the truth is that we have never found anything on that. What we know is that by the 4th century Dardanians were quite mobile pressing to the south, their leaders had contacts with other Greek states, they had even adopted the hoplite warfare style before the "traditionalists" Macedonians who largely remained with archaic political and militaty organisation styles and thus took an early advantage to the point of nearly subjugating all of Macedonia. To my eyes the adoption of the southern military system by Dardanians could imply other things especially in terms of culture. The fact that after the liberation of the Macedonian kingdom by Philip and the conquest of Dardania, Dardanians are simply lost leaving no trace and thus the only remains we find in their lands are Greek - a problem we have also in modern day Bulgaria where "southern Thraecians" did not leave any writing of their own language but in Greek. No talk about Paeonians, that cushion tribe who to my eyes could had easily been an 100% Maceedonian tribe that was not integrated early one in the kingdom under Perdikkas.
The problem is that while other people like Oscans or Etruscans had intense hellenic influence and took the Greek alphabet they wrote in their own languages, southern Thraecians when taking the Greek alphabet... they wrote in Greek! Well of course the things we find date from hellenistic and Roman times, a time of great expansion of that language but I personally suspect there is more to it.
For Macedonians there is no question why they wrote in Greek, well they were Greek! We migght not have tons of literature for the very same reason we do not have tons of Corinthian or Epirot literature (Romans hated Macedonians, Epitors and Corinthians for having resisted them and did enough of things to lower their presence) while Macedonians in the "new lands" in Asia and Africa stuck to the "common Greek" that was emerging. However we DO have texts of 100% Macedonian language, it is obvious that this was a dialect related to Dorian and partially to Aeolian (some Aeolians like Magnetes originated probably from there), we DO know their heavy accent was a joke for others, like Athenians (there was even a 5th century comedy on that theme, called "Macedonians" that obviously treats Macedonians as naif villagers but certainly not foreigners. Athenian playwriters would avoid to joke about villageois barbarians trying to talk in Greek pretending they are Greek as that would be quite insulting (not quite, highly insulting!) - lets not forget the incident some decades back with the Persians insisting in talking in Greek and what happened to them (not much of a Greek hospitality!). Well most interesting are funeral findings who are filled with Greek names and sentences. And we do not talk about a few aristocrats... only some 20,000 graves from the pre-hellenistic era were found in centra-western Macedonia almost all containing full names are clearly Greek names common in other Greek places or Greek local ones. Those partially erased usually have a Greek beginning or a Greek ending. Less than a 5% of the names found are of "disouted" origin in the sense that for example the Greek name ISOKRATHS could be erased to form somethign ISOKR and thus some could insist this is foreign. Note down that Jugoslavian teams in the 1950s and 1960s had a habit of scratching a lot in the southern region of the country (facts quite well known in the archaiological circles). Then Macedonians left writings all over the place they passed. And leave the official "common Greek" texts. The simple Macedonian soldiers marked often their weaponry in Greek (well it could be out of imitation? So much slave-like attitude towards the people they had already won in war? Impossible!). We have random writtings and graves all over to India and western China (and there very very few of the southern greek allies reached - most of them had returned). Above all we have the "katadesmos" a long text of the Roman times that is written in the local language of Macedonia, a dialect that 100% makes sense. It is close to Dorian, with several Aeolian links. It has 85% verified Greek words. 8-10% of easily-proved Greek words but still disputed and some 7-5% words that are most possibly of foreign origins. One could suggest that by Roman times they had changed their language which of course defies every logic when considering all info together.
However it all comes down to what is your ideological position! I mean, the above percentages of Greek and foreign words were almost identical to any other Greek state/colony around the Mediterranean (we know that Ionian Greeks were often ridiculed for their "too Phrygian-like" accents - and even dialects of southern modern Greece presented a 5% of foreign loan words (since Greeks were travelling a lot). To call it barbarian one really has to strech a lot both scientitic methodology as well as imagination.
Macedonians hence, were Greeks with relatively minor northern influences in the exact sense that Ionians were Greeks with - arguably much more - Phrygian influence. There is no reason to deny northern Thraco-illyrian influence. But then there is no reason to inflate it more than the facts present us: Thraco-illyrians were most often enemies than friends of the Macedonians unlike Phrygians that most often were in commerce with Ioanians and not in war for example.
Even more, when the case of Paeonians is not at all clear (more possibly these were Greeksn than not!) and that of Dardanians was very clouded (too many Greek elements in their culture... possibly living us a lot of space to imagine that they even spoke some dialect not that far from Greek...
... one wonders if the "line of Greekness" (i use it in a simplistic way) should be drawn for these ancient times even further to the north rather than a strip of land around the Aegean.
There could be a lot of debate on that but it all comes down to ages before the synthesis of the Greek ethnic group (i.e. Mycenaean times and prior to that), ages that left us no written texts and where we can talk only with circumstantial evidence and a lot of imagination. -
Message 14
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 11th February 2008
If Macedonians could compete in the Olympic games (a view based on Herodotus's rather dodgy account of Alexander I), then why did Archelaus found the Macedonian Games in Dion 70 years before Alexander's participation according to H? And why did the Macedonians seem to think that they had to found these games since they were not allowed compete in the Olympic Games? Had the Greeks forgotten to send them an invite?
And if Macedonians, by Alexander I's time, could compete in the Olympic games, why was their king (nicknamed the hellephile) the only competitor? And why did he have to subsequently produce a fictitious pedigree to demonstrate that he had the right to do it?
And if Macedonians could compete in the Olympic games then why did Philip II of Macedonia, having conquered Greece, enter into a heated debate with the games' administrators to allow Macedonians (who after all were now their bosses) enter competitors?
And if Macedonians could compete in the Olympic Games prior to Philip II where are the names of their victors? Or did they never win anything?
And if Macedonians could ...
... you get the picture Nik.
By the way, Greeks calling Macedonians barbarians was by no means limited to Philip. And nor was it said to emphasise how Greek they were (what a strange concept). Though I agree with you that line between barbarians and Greeks was often not as definite as the Greeks would have liked to believe. At least that was something that the Romans immediately understood before they sorted the Greek mess out. -
Message 15
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 11th February 2008
Some nice questions Normann and thanx for the contribution. I hope I'll answer them satisfactorily.
I am not so sure that Macedonians organised the games in Dion because they were not allowed in the Olympics unless I have jumped over some piece of text. On the other hand I agree with you that Herodotus is not to be taken always as a "father of truth", however I find it difficult to accept easily that he lied or was misinformed over a relatively recent event on Olympics, such a popular and widely visited event.
On the other hand, Alexander I, when accused by his detractors (and as far as I remember ONLY after he won the first position!), he answered for himself since they attacked himself on the basis of his relationship with the Persians (his sister being married to a Persian royal etc.); they had not attacked the Macedonian people. Now, the story he told about his origins was not a fable he invented in the moment to explain himself or to raise his status there, it seems that indeed this was the story told for their royal lineage, hence it most probably had been a much more ancient story. Now if back in the 8th B.C. century the first Macedonian kings invented it I cannot tell you!!! Ehehe! As I said above, the fact that there are not many places from where Dorians could have derived (these lands are such a small place), together with the fact that the Macedonian dialect seemed to have common ground with Dorian (it sounded so much like a branch of archaic Dorian) gives points to the possibility of Macedonian royal families being interconnected with earlier Dorian royal families of the south (the self-acclaimed Heraclidians). Hence, the story. In any way with Heraclidians or no Heraclidians in throne, Macedonians were included in the Greek mythologies with their father Makednos being one of the sons (or sometimes grandson) of Deukalion's son Ellen (father of Greek tribes).
There was never any formal constant prohibition of Macedonians from the Games, correct me if I contradict a text I ignore. Macedonians could compete anytime they liked, and that is what Alexander the I did. At that time Macedonia was still a powerless little village-kingdom so why would Greeks of that time accept them anyway? I underline that to participate you had to be Greek, free and representing a Greek state not... yourself. Now why don't we find any Macedonian winners apart Alexander the I before Alexander the II's time? The answer is simple. Well some 90% of Greek states that participated in the Games 1) they never won ANY first, second or even third position!!! 2) they never sent a team EVERY 4 years. Macedonia back then was not even an average power, hence it is all logical.
I'll tell you also something interensting (but something I am sure it will not surprise you). Last year I had found on the internet the full list of Olympic winners with their cities and the Olympiads that they participated. Interstingly, cities seemed to be athletically particularly successful ONLY when they were politically powerfull. Even most interestingly is that the increasing trend would start 2 decades before a city reached its climax and would fall down just 1 decade before its downfall. For Athens it was late 6th the kickstart and late 5th the downfall - before and after that period it had occasional winners. Sparta had a downfall in the early 4th century (in the beggining they were strong since it was them that found the games and initially they had little competition). Macedonians kickstarted at Philips' time and fell by the end of the next century just a decade before the first blow by the Romans. Rhodians are the most funny - they had 1 or 2 winners for 300 years and... millions of winners in late 3rd century when they ruled the seas up to Imperial times (when the Romans had less of a need from them and their revenues diminuished). However, the Macedonian kingdom in the list is one of the (very very few) states with more than 10 winners above really very well known large and rich cities like Miletos and Syracuse - hence, nobody can accuse of Macedonians of being any less interested in the Games.
Now, most self-respecting Greek states would try to have their own games. Hence Macedonian kingdom was no exception to that (very Greek) rule. Olympic games were just one of the Games available. Ismithian, Nemean, Delphi and so many other, Dion being just one other of the list of the standardised ones let alone the spontaneous ones set to celebrate an event. If one thinks the Olympics were the only games available has quite a narrow perspective of this tradition.
Now, about the nickname "philellene", as I have stated in the past there is a trap: by 19th A.D. century this nickname was necessarily given to non-Greek people that greatly contributed in some Greek cause. For example Lord Byron (the romantic early 19th century poet) was named "philellene" for his love of Greek culture but mainly for his contribution to the revolution and his death there. However, back in the ancient times this term was not given to foreigners, even those positively positioned against the Greeks. The term was given only for Greeks that showed a genuine care about the interests of Greeks as a whole and not only for their special tribal origins and/or regions. I had read that there is a long list of people termed Philellenes and there is no foreigner in it, they were all Greek. Based on that and taking for granted also that naming a foreigner phillelene back in the 5th century could sound very offensive to Greeks, one may actually take the title "Phillelene" more as a very nice evidence of his widely accepted Greek status rather than that of the status of a foreigner.
Also I do not think the Romans ever sorted out anything out of the Greek mess being themselves an even bigger mess: centuries before their Empire they had lost the knowledge of who was Roman and who not. The thing that Romans achieved was to ally with the local aristocracies of most states to ensure dominance and destroy all the rest of the states. They were highly responsible for the "AthenoThebospartamania" that lasts till today, as if the Greek history started and ended with Athenians, Spartans and Thebans. Where are Syracusians, Corinthians, Macedonians, Epirots and so many others? Epirus managed to ressurect in ... early Byzantine times, Macedonia was ripped apart and only the Egnatia road and Thessaloniki (a relativel new city not linked with the macedonian kingdom's past) provided some development, Corinth on the other hand continued more or less as a little provincial city while Athens thrived and so did Sparta (in their own sense of being a city catering for their own needs just like they did in the past... you might find it funny but Spartans even of the 4th century A.D. would not think of themselves as part of the Roman Empire but as the self-governed city allied with the Empire with its own army. Romans had to talk with them (i.e. not order them) if they wished to use their (anyway little and of little use) army.
However, no matter of what I am saying above and despite my strong belief (based on facts and not... my personal wishes) I am always open to the discussion... e.g. if someone proposes to me a theory according to which Macedonians were comprising of tribes that through contact became Greeks say in archaic times (cos after 6th B.C. century I think this could not stand as a theory) I would say that this could be a theory that we cannot bypass like that and we have to examine. However, I am more inclined to the fact that the "rock years" (greek expression to state a difficult era) of 1200 B.C. - 800 B.C. had rather a detrimental effect rather than a positive one in the ethnotic synthesis of the Greek family of tribes, i.e. many tribes in the fringes of the Greek world that could had become Greeks had diverged rather than converged. But this is a large discussion of course.
This is also to remind me about an interesting theory proposed by Jugoslavian and Polonese archaiologists and anthropologists. It is quite a surprise that I would mention them e? Well their theory though not proved was quite intriguing. -
Message 16
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 11th February 2008
Ok - so what you have on your side of the argument is:
A dodgy historian, Herodotus, who by your own admission is suspect but who you conveniently (for you) have decided in this one instance was telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him Zeus. Sorry, that sounds a little too selectively opportunistic to me to carry any weight. It's like saying that George W. must have been telling the truth about weapons of mass destruction because he fibs about other things, but not that. See the problem?
A presumed heritage to Alexander's defence after SHARING first place (notice he didn't have the gall to pretend to be better than the Greeks, even at running around in circles) which predates his version of it (and all this according to our friend Herodotus of course), and which apparently is jimmied up to justify having an iffy brother-in-law. Only a Greek would believe that one, I feel (I remember how such matters tax even the modern Greek mind - explaining iffy relations). Incidentally, even Herodotus claims only that Alexander tried to demonstrate his family's Argive cum Teminid origin, not Greek, and that this met with derision and anger from the Greeks whose opinion of Argives seems to rank somewhere in and around their present love of Pomaks and Armenians in their midst, and we must assume from the Argives who were horrified that a barbarian Macedonian would have the gall to attempt to share their gene pool, what with them being in by the skin of their teeth themselves.
A mention of Macedonians in Greek mythology, thereby making them Greek. Welcome to Greece, people of Georgia. Even if the Amazons didn't live there, your habit of hanging money-making fleeces on trees gets you into the hellenic nation! Are you sure that's the way it works, Nik? I ask only since, on that basis, Heracles and his pointless meandering will by this token have managed to enrol just about every nation with a seaboard within ten years sailing from Athens into the Greek political state. Speaking as a person from a place with just such a seaboard I would like to decline your gracious offer, thanks!
A belief that Macedonians were never "formally" stopped from competing - meaning what? They just "chose" not to, and then complained at length about not being allowed to, just to confuse everyone? Couldn't someone from the Olympic Committee have sent them a "formal" invitation then, just to clear up the misapprehension? After all, it lasted half a millennium or thereabouts. Even the modern Greek postal system could have delivered it in that time!
A belief that Macedonians didn't win anything because they were "the wrong sort of Greeks" and hadn't any political clout (which more or less rests on the assumption that the Olympic Games, Greek style, are about as noble a tradition as the Cosa Nostra's election process). Given the many centuries that the poor guys, if Greeks, were "the wrong sort" based on this logic, it would make one wonder why Alexander didn't apply to be Egyptian, or Persian, or even a Barbarian proto-Roman still living in the Etruscan trees - anything except such an obviously nepotistic, narcisstic, xenophobic and self-centred crowd as those who lived to their south.
An assertion that "philhellenic" means "loving oneself". Of course I can see why a Greek would think this, since no one loves the Greeks more. But a Macedonian being tarred with the same brush simply marks him out as an outsider with a very poor taste in hero-worship, then and now.
Good to hear you're open to discussion, Nik. I hadn't quite got that impression from your eclectic and inaccurate cherry-picked "references" that you used to support your stance.
And here was me thinking the Romans had (finally) made honest men of ye!
-
Message 17
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Monday, 11th February 2008
Carry on, gentlemen, you have an appreciative audience.
Regards, P. -
Message 18
Posted by Volgadon (U10843893) on Tuesday, 12th February 2008
Just do it without insulting entire modern nations, please.
-
Message 19
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 12th February 2008
Ah, good, a critic with no input. Just what we need here.
I'll take refuge in the beautifully addled mind of that giant of serendipity and wit, Donald Rumsfeld when he ventured the apposite aphorism (probably totally accidentally) - "If you are not criticized, you may not be doing much!" -
Message 20
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Tuesday, 12th February 2008
E-Nik, we await your reply - otherwise it's game set and match to Nordman. This is the first Macedonian thread for over a year!
Ever annoying you, I suppose, Regards, P. -
Message 21
Posted by Volgadon (U10843893) on Tuesday, 12th February 2008
Oh, did I offend you with that? With wanting to see a thread actually based on facts and reasoning instead of stooping to low levels? Shall I share some examples?
"Only a Greek would believe that one, I feel"
"Speaking as a person from a place with just such a seaboard I would like to decline your gracious offer, thanks!"
"After all, it lasted half a millennium or thereabouts. Even the modern Greek postal system could have delivered it in that time!"
"An assertion that "philhellenic" means "loving oneself". Of course I can see why a Greek would think this, since no one loves the Greeks more. But a Macedonian being tarred with the same brush simply marks him out as an outsider with a very poor taste in hero-worship, then and now."
"And here was me thinking the Romans had (finally) made honest men of ye!"
They do nothing to further your arguments, spoiling an otherwise ecxellent post. In fact they seem like deliberate goads at Nik and can't fail to result in heated debate. -
Message 22
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 12th February 2008
Offend me? What ARE you on about?
And yes - Nik and I have a mutual understanding about point and counterbalance going back a long way. Well, at least I understand it. It's all to do with me presenting one view of Greece and him the diametric opposite. Or haven't you read Nik's posts for the last few years? Give it a go and see if you can spot a theme.
Thanks for the comp - they're all appreciated, even the back-handed ones! -
Message 23
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 12th February 2008
Hi Volgadon.
Nik is a knowledgable and entertaining poster. he's also greeker then Feta. left to himslef he can persuede himself that everysingle good thing in the world was either invented in Greece or designed by a Greek.
Theres nowt like being proud of your country but he can take it too far. -
Message 24
Posted by Volgadon (U10843893) on Tuesday, 12th February 2008
Yes, I can spot a theme, that's why I think those comments will start him off on a frenzy that'll spoil an interesting thread.
-
Message 25
Posted by Xenos5 (U1814603) on Wednesday, 13th February 2008
Hello again
Sorry I've been busy.
Nik - thank you so much for your very full replies, they are fascinating. I found them 100% convincing - until I started reading Nordmann's ! I think he has scored a few hits with your selective reading of factors in some cases; however I think that's balanced by his selective ignoring of your stronger points. (I particularly liked your referenec to Strabo, which i had not come across).
I suppose one could say the burden of proof is with you, so it's fair enough for people to try to pick holes - after all, that's waht i was doing.
However, I remain far more convinecd than I was before that he Macedonians could accuartely be said to be Greeks, for many reasons.
This thread may have run its course. But if not, here's a slightly different thoufght I had. I think now my initial question was too simplistic. I think there are actually 3 questions, viz :
1 How Greek did the Macedonians consider themselves to be ?
2 How Greek did the (other) Greeks consider them to be ?
3 How Greek were they in fact ?
Questiosn 1 and 2 can only be answered by examining the sources and finding out the facts, if we can, about what attitudes prevailed at the time.
Question 3 is different, and is wholly dependent upon our own definitions, as we may take in a very wide raneg of possible factors (eg attitudes, dress, culture, language, ethnicity, geography, religion, etc).
I think that in your excellent posts, Nik, you moved quite freely between questions 1, 2 and 3, answering them all as 'very'.
I think my current opinion would be the answers are
1 Very
2 Quite
3 It all depends what we mean !
Best wishes and thanks again for informative and interesting posts.
X -
Message 26
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 14th February 2008
Xenos, Normann and guys, thanx for the nice comments and even the occasional 'piercing comments' but then how relevant is to say that I am 'greekier than feta' when:
1) For good or for bad the story of Eastern Mediterranean is the one I know better than others. I am also interested in that of western Europe (I find the british history fascinating), that of China, India and am very much fond of Aztes and Incas. However when I write for example about Incas and explain with facts why these could had withstood (like most other American natives) the European onslaught if they did not die of biological reasons, nobody comes to accuse me of "Greekness" - however again few commend on the points.
2) How can I be a "feta" when I am perhaps one of the very few Greeks that supports the truth - that few of us (modern Greeks) derive from the ancient Macedonians, Spartans, Corinthians and Athenians (due to the Gothic and Bulgarian raids of the middle ages). Most of us derive from populations from South Italy and Minor Asia due to the massive population transfers designed by the Byzantine Emperors right after the raids and due to the later Greek history (and the recent de-hellenisation of Minor Asia). When I say that to my fellow Greeks they accuse me of... treason! Of course there are the few communists that attack any idea of a nation but these are also very disappointed when I tell them the obvious that Greeks do not look like Albanians or Bulgarians (strange e?) since they mixed more with fellow southern Thraecians, Phrygians, Bithynians and Lydians rather than Goths, Avars, Bulgarians, Serbians, Albanians or Seljuks. What can I do?
Normann you said:
"Good to hear you're open to discussion, Nik. I hadn't quite got that impression from your eclectic and inaccurate cherry-picked "references" that you used to support your stance."
Whos is on ecclectic references? What had I said?
"On the other hand I agree with you that Herodotus is not to be taken always as a "father of truth", however I find it difficult to accept easily that he lied or was misinformed over a relatively recent event on Olympics, such a popular and widely visited event."
More logical answer than what I said before your comment, I cannot find! -
Message 27
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 14th February 2008
Had I not been so "ecclectic" I would start with Stravo, unless Stravo is also a liar? Or was he paid by anyone to write what he wrote, or was he on a particular political agenda? Em? What can I say more? Just keep up with the evidence.
Now, I have not more time but promise really soon to comment on that theory (it is just a theory that we could discuss not anything more than that) about the populations of S.E. Europe, I mentioned earlier. -
Message 28
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 14th February 2008
Hi E_Nik,
I take it Stravo is Strabo writing in the 1st Century BC? If so, I'm a bit puzzled why you're so keen to use him as strong evidence that the Macedonians were Greeks. He doesn't include the geography of Macedonia in his books on the geography of Greece (Books VIII-X) but includes it towards the end of Book VII - a book that coincidentally covers a number of peoples also viewed as barbarians, such as the Germans, Cimbri and Dacians...
...unless Stravo is also a liar?听
I wouldn't call Strabo a liar, but I wouldn't go out of my way to call him honest either...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 29
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 14th February 2008
Hi Nik,
there was no insult intended. I was trying to think of something that is indisputably greek and common in the UK. -
Message 30
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 14th February 2008
And Stelios Haji-Ioannou (how common can one get?) doesn't have the same ring to it as "feta".
Thanks for the clarification Nik, though I could have written it for you at this stage, so used to your posts have I become. But the important thing is that you seem to have realised the error of your earlier assertions. As long as we all agree that Macedonians weren't really Greeks (at least until they became the ones who decided such things, and the lads in southern parts then did a nifty bit of backward assimilation to keep in with them) I suppose the subject is over as topic of discussion.
Ok - I've had to be a bit eclectic myself to extract that truth from what you say (since you say also the diametrically opposite at times, depending on where your stream of consciousness has brought you), but since you generously provide so much by way of verbal material to pick from I've done my best. -
Message 31
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 15th February 2008
Haha Normann leave this for the clueless! You have not made reference to ANYthing at all! I mean, please go on and tell on what evidence you base your view that Macedonians were not Greeks?
On language? On culture? Please mention us your 'indisputable' references!
Rainbow, your comments are not into the context. Stravo had absolutely no political agenda towards Macedonians. If fact it was more the Romans who were back in these days always afraid of the Macedonians and a possible rebelion. Stravo was 100% adamant. -
Message 32
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 15th February 2008
Hi Nik,
Well, Strabo was writing a good few hundred years after Alexander, and saying that Greeks contemporary with Strabo considered Macedonians Greek doesn't in any way support your argument that the Greeks before Alexander felt the same way towards the Macedonians. I believe that the Greeks pretty much considered the Macedonians barbarians until the Macedonians became a power base and subsequently a threat - after this point using the "B" word would have been impolitic. Post-Thebes I think you would have found it hard to find any Greek willing to call a Macedonian a barbarian to his face no matter what that Greek personally believed...
Can you summarise your evidence and theories that the Greeks considered Macedonians as Greek into a few sentences (or bullet points)?
If fact it was more the Romans who were back in these days always afraid of the Macedonians and a possible rebelion.听
Remember that if the 1st edition of Strabo's Geographica was published in 7BC and the final edition no later than AD23 then we're deep into the reign of Augustus. So when you say "these days" I assume you're talking about the period 10BC-AD25 - can you supply some evidence about the Romans' fears of the Macedonians and also of any potential rebellions? It's not that I doubt you in any way - just that I don't have any books with me at work.
Cheers,
RF -
Message 33
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 15th February 2008
tell on what evidence you base your view that Macedonians were not Greeks
听
Quite a lot actually.
Demosthenes, for example, describing Philip, Alexander's daddy; "not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, nor even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia"
Plutarch, writing later about Demosthenes, described what the latter did when he heard that Alexander had died. Seizing the moment he (Demos.) "threw all that he had into helping them (the anti-Macedonian League that he had formed) incite the various states to attack the Macedonians and drive them out of Greece."
But that's just the tip of the iceberg with Demo. His whole claim to fame is the fact that he identified the Macedonians as belligerent tyrants from outside who had ridden roughshod over poor little Greece and he therefore equated the concept of "liberty" with turfing them out again. The man's life, quotes, and cited quotes never once describe Macedonia as anything but an alien entity.
Then there's your golden boy - Alexander. Not once, not twice, not even three times (but maybe four) he goes to extraordinary lengths to show his ignorance of the "fact" that he was really Greek. He addresses his troops in Macedonian - not a dialect of Greek but a separate language. He institutes Greek as a second language in his court. He orders that Greeks be tried in Greek but that "his kinsmen" (as he describes Macedonians) be tried in their own tongue, even in Greece. Most tellingly, he keeps his troops separate. The Macedonian units he rgarded as his own troops, the Greeks mere mercenaries. (Incidentally, Darius was no slouch in recruiting the latter either. 80,000 Greeks opposed Alexander's troops at Issus, according to Arrian and Plutarch).
But then Alexander's standpoint - that Macedonians and Greeks were two different peoples - was not one that anyone much disputed at the time, except perhaps the upper echelons in the Greek states who for a while had to worm their way into the good books of their Macedonian conquerors. It had a long history, and one pithily summed up on the Greek side by Thrasymachus when he had said of the then Macedonian leader; ""Shall we, being Greeks, be slaves to Archelaus, a barbarian?" This was long before propagandists like Isocrates had later invented Heracles as an ancestor for the Macedonian kings and such traditional use of the word "barbarian" with regard to Macedonians suddenly had to be dismissed (with nervous coughs and embarrassed blushes, no doubt) as "excited rhetoric". This was how it was. Greeks were Greeks. The rest were barbarians. No state within the Greek "federation" had ever been described thus.
But then Isocrates fawning was itself only a temporary political expediency. After the Macedonian power base collapsed everything went back to where it always had been. Later writers, like Livy, Plutarch, Arrian and so on, openly spoke of the mutual racial distrust bordering on hatred between "Greeks" and "Macedonians", knowing obviously full well that the Greek, Roman, and Macedonian readers of their works would not take issue with the assertion.
If you want I can give you more citations and quotes from these writers (and Polybius, Livy, your friends Herdotuse and Strabo, Quintus Curtius Rufus, not to mention Diodorus, Justin, and even Marcus Aurelius - all of whom seemed to labour under the illusion that Macedonians were foreigners who had overrun Greece). I bet their ghostly shades are clapping themselves on the back with unrestrained relief and delight that they didn't have the internet in their day and have to argue the toss with an "expert". -
Message 34
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 17th February 2008
Hahaha! So according to you a rhetor (professional liar) is to be taken seriously above Stravo and Herodotus (who seemed to have no general concern about the status of Macedonians)! Unbelievable.
Note down that back in these days Spartans could not understand Athenians directly and often between disparate Greek groups even a nice translator could be handy enough when in serious cases (like a court). These people talked sometimes idioms sometimes dialects and very often VERY strong dialects. I hope you know what means by very strong dialects. Hence, the use of "our/your language" is not any proof of a foreign language.
You mention Demosthenis but you fail again to mention Aeshunis and the fact that nearly HALF Athens supported Macedonians as leaders of Greeks showing nicely what political motivations existed behind. You seem to fail to note that certain Athenians even the respectable Thycidides called barbarians the likes of Aetolians and Eurytaneans despite these were living ... around the Delphi (like Macedonians were living in Olymp)... hence?
Hence... it is all so funny that NO other Greek ever mentioned that barbarians populate their sacred places!!!!
Rainbow, that was an intereresting point (about Stravo living certain centuries afterwards) but then on the basis of the theatrical play "Macedonians" written in mid-late 5th century we can rest assured that the likes of Athenians (a bit before Demosthenis) would never consider MAcedonians as non-Greek but only as another "villageois" Greek tribe. This play has even phrases in Macedonian dialect, not enough to reconstruct the whole dialect but more than enough to make the direct link with the "katadesmos" text in later Roman times (that gives us a nice idea of the Macedonian dialect).
Very funny when you mention the "different" language. When Macedonian kings tried to ally the rest of the Greek states against Rome they had sent representatives - the one (I do not remember if it was the king himself) that went to Aetolia he said that "We Macedonians and you Aetolians share a very common link, our people talk the same language" (i.e. the same dialect).
Well what do we know about Aetolians? That they talked barbarian? That they were not accepted in the panhellenic Why would a foreigner go on and claim especially for Aetolians - where Aetolians so deaf as not to hear the "great linguistic barrier?".
I mean just EVERY other Greek is not to be taken seriously and we have to take seriously Demosthenis and a bunch of sad losers?
That is what i call a bending of history. Please try to stick to the real points not your personal preferences. -
Message 35
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 17th February 2008
I know it is not easy to make the difference between a point of impressions and a valid point but then that is what is our hobby, historical analysis, isn't it?
Cheers guys. -
Message 36
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 18th February 2008
Hahaha! So according to you a rhetor (professional liar) is to be taken seriously above Stravo and Herodotus (who seemed to have no general concern about the status of Macedonians)! Unbelievable.
听
Good to see that you have finally realised the truth about your golden boy. But I would not call Alexander a professional liar. Rather, he employed a fair amount of them to do his PR for him.
These people talked sometimes idioms sometimes dialects and very often VERY strong dialects. I hope you know what means by very strong dialects. Hence, the use of "our/your language" is not any proof of a foreign language.
听
Yes, but the question is did Alexander et al understand this (admittedly weird) concept? You choose to believe the Macedonians spoke a Greek dialect. But you don't know that, simply hope it. Those who spoke it seemed however to labour under the illusion that it was a language in its own right. If it comes to deciding between those who knew and those who are guessing some millennia afterwards, I think I'll stick with the safe bet, if that's alright with you, Nik.
... fail again to mention Aeshunis and the fact that nearly HALF Athens supported Macedonians as leaders of Greeks showing nicely what political motivations existed behind.
听
Only half? Fair play to the Athenians so for not being the pro-Macdonian toadies that Alexander and his daddy presumed them to be. Unfortunately the half that did support the Macedonian hegemony inflicted on them was a rather powerful half, wasn't it? And that rather suggests that things were as I said before - the top guys knew just which side their bread was buttered on after the Macedonian takeover and engaged in all sorts of semantic, mythological and historically revisionary gymnastics to backdate Macedonians' inclusion in the "hellenic" club. It didn't last though. Thanks to the fact that Alexander proved to be a peripathetic vainglorious self-aggrandiser, the whole power base collapsed and gave the Greeks a chance to drop the pretence they had been so assiduous in contructing when their lack of coordination, cooperation, and military focus saw them overrun.
... Thycidides called barbarians the likes of Aetolians and Eurytaneans ...
听
When? Where?
He said in his Peloponnesian War book that Demosthenes wanted both as Greek allies, although the Aetolians had an old-fashioned military and cultural outlook and the Eurytaneans, their neighbours, were hard to understand and liked to eat raw meat. They were Hellenes, if a little recalcitrant and smelly. The Macedonians, however, he said were foreigners and needed to be turfed out from Hellenic territory. Spot a difference ??????
I mean just EVERY other Greek is not to be taken seriously ...
听
Wise words. -
Message 37
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 19th February 2008
Wise words? Ok, so you are based only on 1-2 rehtors professional liars, people guided not only by their political opposition but also often by their fanatiscism against Macedonians and you reject the other 99% of Greeks - including half the co-citizens of these rehtors (!!!hehe!!!) that considered Macedonians as another Greek tribe.
Tell me about the priests at Delphi, the judges at Olympia, about Epirots, Thessalians, Argives and Aetolians... why on earth nobody of them ever reacted to the (according to you false) claims of a little powerless (according to you barbaric) kingdom?
How can it be that you are turning a blind eye to the fact that WE DO KNOW about the everyday language of the average Macedonian? We do not have tons of texts but WE DO HAVE the following:
1) 100,000s of graves of which the 100% of those with full names are Greek.
2) 98% of place names are Greek
3) We do have texts from a 5th century Athenian theatrical play called "Macedonians" reconstructing the Macedonian dialect of the average middle class Macedonians as a villagois Dorian-like dialect (you can rest assured that no-one would dare do that for a foreign tribe!).
4) We do have a long text (the "katadesmos") of the later roman times written in local Macedonian dialect of the times, which not at all surprisingly makes a direct link with earlier findings (e.g. the play "Macedonians").
5) Macedonians that reached deeper into India and western China left ONLY Greek texts behind them (these were not allied troops, nor all of them Macedonian highly educated aristocrats but often mid-lower rank people).
Out of the words verified as "Macedonian language", the 85% is verified as 100% pure Greek by everyone (even Slavic propagandist historians are not arguing anymroe about that), a 7-10% seems a lot Greek but it is still argued (often on a ridiculous basis) and a 5-7% seems to have been foreign loans. It has to be noted that Greeks in Minor Asia presented even higher percentages of foreign word loans.
On what basis we can suggest that these peopel were not Greek I am really wondering.
Ok, if your Demosthenis does not "work" for your argumentation, why don't you comment on the language? -
Message 38
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 19th February 2008
Hi all,
I just picked up a book yesterday and noticed the following paragraph which may be of interest:
A debate has raged since antiquity about whether Alexander and his Macedonians were Greek. The coasts had long been within Greek conciousness; colonies had been founded in the archaic period, while rich Athenians like Thucydides had exploited the gold and silver resources of the hinterland. Before the fourth century, however, Macedonia may have been regarded as a fringe area, and during that century Athenian politicians were able to deny, when it suited them, that the Macedonians were Greeks. Once the Macedonians became a threatening power, some Greek writers represented them as in almost every way -unGreek. It is unlikely, however, that the ruling Argeadi were more or less fully hellenized from at least the early fifth century, when we see them establishing cultural links with the southern Greeks. The kings claimed descent from Zeus; Alexander I took part in the Olympic games, apparently the first Macedonian to do so, persuading the judges of his Greekness by enumerating his ancestors back to the kings of Argos. There seems to have been a presumption that ordinary Macedonians, despite their dialect, were not as Greek as their kings - Herodotus describes Amyntas (c.500) as a 'Greek ruling over Macedonians' (5.20) - but despite ancient and modern controversies it seems clear that the Macedonians as a whole were Greek-speakers. While the elite naturally communicated with other elites in standard, probably Attic, Greek, the ordinary Macedonians appear to have spoken a dialect of Greek, albeit with loan-words from Illyrian and Thracian which gave ammunition to their denigrators.听
SOURCE : The Greek World After Alexander 323-30BC (Graham Shipley) pg 109.
It looks like a great book, and I'd love to give the references quoted by the author, but the copy I have has a blank page in the notes section where the references should be for this paragraph. This one's going back to shop I think...
Cheers,
RF
p.s. All spilleng mistakes and typos in the above quote are mine and not the author's.
-
Message 39
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 19th February 2008
What are you saying Nik? That an Irishman today is really English because he can converse better in the English tongue than in the Irish?
It might reveal a hint of the history between the two countries, and to an extent the assimiliation of the language in the Irish case has been even more impressively thorough than that of the Macedonians in Alexander's time, but I dare you go into the average Irish pub and announce your theory as fact in their presence!
The graves you refer to, so often used as "evidence" that Macedonia was Greek, are the ones that (Greek) archaeologists like to call simply "Macedonian Graves", the implication on their part being that the style is a variant of classical Greek grave-types. The Greek inscriptions are cited as proof of this. Of course what is omitted from this term of reference is that the "Macedonian Graves" referred to date largely from the 4th century BC and contained the remains of Macedonia's ruling classes. Their departure from the traditional Macedonian style (the older graves are simply not referred to at all except cursorily in many Greek archaeological publications) is not over-laboured in case it attracts attention to the fact that the vast majority of the Macedonians were obviously still being interred in, well, a Macedonian, non-Greek style. So, when someone says to me "Ah, but all the inscriptions on Macedonian graves are Greek", I tend to retort simply that "all the inscriptions on Macedonian graves of the Hellenic style are Greek." For a better picture of how the assimilation progressed in the period covering two centuries before and after Macedonian aristocracy's first adoption of Greek in necropoli one can, for example, read up about the Lichnidos excavations. The early graves did not have Macedonian inscriptions, but nor did they have Greek.
Personally I think the process was a two-way thing. Ionian colonies intruded Hellenic culture into the Macedonian territory and over time the Macedonian position as a buffer state between Greece and "the rest" drew it inexorably into the Hellenic world via these cultural conduits. The Hellenic culture filtered down from the top, but the process was slow and seemingly not one generally encouraged by Greek states in the main. A far cry, in other words, from the stark claim of Nik (and many other modern Greeks) that Macedonians were "always" Greek. Not only were they not, but even by the time their political and military clout won out over their neighbours, there was sufficient feeling on both sides that they were a race apart that evidence for it has been preserved in the historical record (despite Nik's simple dismissal of it as "lies").
RF's quote above, is a fair summation of the state of play culturally and politically by the time that takeover had occurred. It should by no means be taken as implying that this was how it had always been. -
Message 40
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 20th February 2008
Nordmann, we are talking about Greeks. That is the nation with the oldest best and continuously documented history on this planet either you like it or not. Macedonians, a very active tribe, one that happened also to become highly cultured, took it to China and India and you come here to claim that they left absolutely nothing of their very own culture? I say this is impossible.
Yes Irish speak Engligh but are not English but wait, there is a HUGE difference. The difference is that had Macedonians been foreigners and only their leaders "hellenized" they would had adopted slowly or rapidly but certainly directly one of the prominent Greek dialects of their era, that is Attic, Spartan Dorian or at least neighbouring Thessalian Aeolian. However, that was not true. What kind of Greek did average Macedonians speak? A Dorian-like dialect of their very own! One that seemed too much to be archaic Dorian. Or should I say that Dorians spoke a Macedonian-like evolved dialect? Or does anyone doubt about the origins of Dorians. Unless anyone thinks here that Dorians came by ships from Minor Asia, Palestine or Egypt. I mean use your logic!
You say that "the inscriptions of hellenic style graves" are in Greek. You said earlier that there were no inscriptions (so any idiot can say whatever). But Normann ALL Greek graves prior to 7th century were without inscriptions!!!! Or wuld you imagine that Macedonian kings in the 5th century imposed the renaming even of the very last Macedonian citizen with a Greek name? Unimaginable. Cos we have digged 10s of 1000s of graves and those of simple people and they all have male and female names in Greek! Most interestingly they have sometimes Greek names easily found elsewhere in the Greek world and Greek names especially found in Macedonia (like it happened in other regions) - i.e. the ABSOLUTE proof that average half-illiterate people spoke ONLY Greek. Unless you have another explanation (a logical one you cannot find).
Normann you have again to stick to the point: The original Macedonian kingdom occupied a rather small area. It was not Paionia (a distinct tribe), not Dardania (a distinct tribe). Macedonia is the region just north of Olympus including the holy mountain. The fact that later the kingdom was temporarily conquered by northern tribes and soon liberated and backlashed on them and conquered them has nothing to do with the ethnic origins of Macedonians. English did not become Indians when founded the East Indian company, isn't it?
The cultural change you refer is of no point. Greeks had 100s of different cultures that varied greatly over time. Culture even in our cosmopolitan modern era is not necessarily a sign of ethnicity.
However earlier Macedonian culture is also another proof of their Greek origins. Their customs are archaic Greek, even their weaponry and warfare styles 主播大秀ric-like (macedonian helmet is mycenian-style). Why would anyone expect them to have followed the evolution in the south, just because they were Greek, I cannot understand. I mean were Aetolians (who were closer to the south) monitoring closely the evolutions in Sparta or Thebes or Athens? I do not think so, they were too too traditionalists and archaic-like, just like Macedonians had been. That is why these two found too many common points including their dialects that seemed to had been too close for Macedonian kings to demand alliance on the basis of language closeness! I mean Aetolians were deaf not to hear the "extravagant linguistic difference" you Nordmann claim? Perhaps you know better than them?
You claim:
""Ionian colonies intruded Hellenic culture into the Macedonian territory""
How come then Macedonians present Dorian-like characteristics both in culture and language and affiliate more easily with the likes of Epirots (neighbours) and Aetolians (not neighbours) even at late times when Attic-Ionian had become the "lingua franca"? Unimaginable contradiction! Macedonians ONLY made reference to their Dorian brothers not to their (most often if not continuously enemy) Ionian colonies in Chalchidiki and neighbouring Thraecian coastline.
You claim:
Race apart? Interesting. On what basis? -
Message 41
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 20th February 2008
I find the article of Rainbow above more close to the point and the heart of this discussion and it is actually there I would like to orientate the discussion.
Most certainly Macedonians had a Greek dialect of their own prior to the adoption of Attic in the court for political reasons. Most certainly all detractors like Demosthenis had political motivations while those that had not universalyl accepted Macedonians as just another Greek tribe.
The question "how Greek were Macedonians" thus must be moved back in time, well into the archaic (and I would say the early archaic times) prior to the unification of the separate tribes of the region.
But this question "how Greek" is also active for every other Greek tribe, Dorians, Ionians, Aeolians. Has really anyone read ever Aeolian Greek? Well it was more than Catalan and Castilliano. Portuguese and Spanish may communicate better than Ionians and Aeolians (Aeolians had all verbs ending in -imi making their speech difficult for others). Dorians spoke more "Erasmian" like while Ionians more "modern Greek" like (refering to pronunciations)... and there is a considerable difference between that. Even as late as the 5th century (when they had lived side by side for centuries), for such a basic word like mother, Dorians pronounced a harsh "matar" and Ionians a soft "meeter" (often pronounced meeteer). Between them a full dialogue was often done with lots of of comprehension as we are talking about dialects and not simply idioms.
Couldn't these tribes be considered as separate nations? Surprise, well I say yes!
Under other circumstances they could have easily become separate nations. However the notion of the Greek word "ethnos" is not the exact translation of the notion "nation" which has been too much linked with the notion of state. Also, Greeks, and earlier Greek tribes never defined ethnically themselves after some stupid king's land possesions. Hence, the "Greek ethnos" has to be seen as the collection of tribes that had both the Greek language as well as the consciousness of the existence of certain links in between them.
Do not also forget that these lands are really such a small place. A tiny corner of a small continent!!! You could not easily have the "ethnogenesis" of many different nations. In fact I am quite surprised that Greeks and their beighbours Mysians, Bithynians, Phrygians, Paeonians, Agrianes and Dardanians (described all with the generic term "Thraecians") had not merged early on as one nation.
Has anyone read any words in Phrygian? Well they are too close to Greek, just too close to had been enabling some communication between "first-contact" people back in archaic times! In Mycenaean times these two could most possibly communicate even better (assumption). Now why don't we talk about the Frygellenes it is most possibly because of the destruction of the Mycenaean centres that dived the region into relative isolationism.
The way I see it is that in the S.E. Europe you had basically two anthropologic groups: Mediterraneans (represented by Greeks and Thraecians) and the late comers Dinarics (Illyrians) who took mostly the north, north western part of the peninsula pushing others to the south. Among them one may imagine also layers of tribes with varying percentage of intermarriage e.g. 20-80, 50-50, 80-20% Mediterraneans-Illyrians. Some consider for example Thraecians as the result of the early meeting between Mediterraneans and Illyrians (up in the Danube). Who knows?
My personal opinion is that Thraecians of the south were much more related to Greeks than to their northern neighbours. Whether they enterred the "notion of the Greek ethnos" or not was simply the "odds of history". Coastal regions did it, inner regions more isolated did not.
Now, if Macedonians can be seen as the union of separate tribes 80% Greek and 20% Thraecian or other (at any other percentage though less of Greek is least possible on the later linguistic evidence), it could be a reasonable hypothesis, however the same question remains for all Dorians alike!!! Hence, all that discussion has to go up to very archaic times for which till now only we can only assume. -
Message 42
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 20th February 2008
I'll give you the last word on matters, Nik (since you have so many of them). But your vacillation between declaring fact and later admitting assumption makes arguing any point with you rather pointless.
The very last thing you say in your last post addressed to RF is as open and honest an assessment of how sure you can be in what you say. The rest of that post, and all your previous posts, contradict that logical statement.
Long Live Macedonia! -
Message 43
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 20th February 2008
Where is the contradiction? Above I spoke about eras in chronology prior to the birth of the Hellenic nation (consolidated in mid-archaic times). So where is the contradiction?
All I am saying is that after that consolidation, Macedonians where considered as Greek as anyone, what yourself is saying is that Macedonians where a "late add-on" into the corps of the Hellenic nation, which I have showed to you repeatedly contradicts with all findings.
Greeks back in the 5th century accepting a poor backwards barbarian nation into their own notion of "ethnos"?
It just does not make sense!!! -
Message 44
Posted by Aleksandar_MKD (U2201635) on Monday, 17th March 2008
Interesting discussion, I must say.
I was provoked by the title of this discussion, which I think is wrongly putted. How much Ancient Macedonians are Macedonians, or maybe how much modern Macedonians are Ancient Macedonians?
As a contribution to the discussion I would like to point out a recent study made by two Macedonians. Their study is deciphering the 'Demotic' script (the middle text, under the hieroglyphs and above the Ancient Greek text) written on Rosetta stone.
For those who haven't heard of Rosetta stone, it is an archeological artifact discovered in Alexandria, Egypt of immense importance. On Rosetta stone are engraved three orders, very similar, for three classes of people into three scripts: into hieroglyphs (first, upper script) for the priests in the temples, into the so called 'Demotic' script (the second, middle script) for the 'living masters' i.e. the Ptolemy's and into Ancient Greek (the third, bottomed script) for the 'crawlers' i.e. ruled ones. Because of this the Rosetta stone has made it possible decrypting the hieroglyphs, consequently to that it has immense importance for restoring the knowledge of the priest in Egypt, to read the hieroglyphs, lost somewhere in the 3-4 century AD. This fact is undeniable and it's widely accepted from all scholars all over the world.
Till 1920, scholars have accepted that three scripts represent three languages: hieroglyphs = Ancient Egyptian, 'Demotic' script = Ancient Macedonian (the language of the 'living masters' in Ancient Egypt i.e. Ptolemy's dynasty) and Ancient Greek letters = Ancient Greek. Because all previous efforts to decrypt the middle text, the so called 'Demotic' script and because of the Balkan's politics of the European powers it was proposed and assumed that Ancient Macedonians were Ancient Greek tribe and consequently to that the 'Demotic' script is no more than another script that was used from the 'Greek speaking' Ancient Macedonians (two scripts for one language (what an assumption and coincidence?!), right after dividing Macedonia and Macedonians (with Bucharest treaty in 1913) between the three kingdoms: Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria, with amen of the European powers at that time.
The dividing of Macedonia was justified by three 'facts':
1. There is no direct descendent of the Ancient Macedonians, they were 'probably' or 'most certainly' Ancient Greek tribe that lately become part of the modern Greek nation.
2. In Macedonia lives only 'Slavophonic' population without any ethnic conciseness a population that mostly declare it self as Greeks, Bulgarian, Serbs and part of it as 'neither'.
3. Since there are no Macedonians (direct or even indirect descendent of the Ancient Macedonians), there is only a territory with the name Macedonia, a territory that was part of the tree kingdoms (Byzantium, Bulgaria and Serbia) over the ages since Byzantium Empire till the Ottomans and since none of these kingdoms managed to contain Macedonia in their boundaries and assimilate the native population, it was supposed to bi 'equally' divided.
Since there is no legit descendent to the territory (there is no link between Ancient Macedonians and the 'slavophonic' population), there is only a territory Macedonia that was part of all Balkan kingdoms during the centuries, consequently the territory was divided between three Balkan states.
If the politic of the European powers toward the Balkans in the late 19-th and early 20-th century is taken into consideration, that there is no Macedonian nation and consequently to that Macedonia can be divided between the Balkan states (Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia) so that three 'big' Balkan states can be established, then it is very understandable why part of the scholars start to 'disagree' about the representation of the 'Demotic' script.
Just to establish the facts I must point out the following argument: based on modern Greek language the scholars decrypt the Ancient Greek letters and the unbreakable, consequential bound was made between both Ancient and Modern Greek languages: Modern Greek is descendent of the Ancient Greek, the only true, logic, reasonable and comprehendible explanation by my humble opinion. And I believe that there is none in the world with reasonable and healthy sense that can deny it.
What these two Macedonian scholars did is assuming the same as in Ancient and Modern Greek language: the Modern Macedonian language is a descent to the Ancient Macedonian language.
As first, it is completely opposite of the fact that the Modern, contemporary Macedonian language is a Slavic language. The assumption is so 'absurd', 'unscientific', 'unserious' and even 'funny' (not to mention 'anti-Greek'?). which is the reason why none till now succeeded in deciphering the 'Demotic' script. There is nothing wrong with the assumption, it is the same assumption that was made in deciphering the Ancient Greek letters and language, but, as long as you put aside the fact that the contemporary, Modern Macedonian language has Slavic roots, the only 'confusing' fact.
After making this logical assumption, they successfully decrypt the 'Demotic' script, without any notable difficulties. They successfully discovered and verified the grammar rules, the meaning of the words, the way words were composed.
The most undeniable fact in their study is the translation of the text. Their results are almost identical with the meaning of the texts written into Ancient Egyptian (hieroglyphs) and Ancient Greek letters.
Further more, the decrypting showed that the Ancient Macedonians had their own names for their gods, the cities, the nations and the territories.
Beffore make any comments I suggest to read the study first. It's available in .pdf format at this url:
or you can google it with:
rosetta+stone+mk
the first link:
TRACING THE SCRIPT AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE ANCIENT MACEDONIANS
(complete translation of the research results in English) -
Message 45
Posted by Aleksandar_MKD (U2201635) on Wednesday, 19th March 2008
No comments Nik?
Not a single comment?!
I'm sorry NIk, but it seems to me that the era of proving the Greekness of the Macedonians is over. Finaly!
I'm inviting you to find one, at least one, scholar that will find any or at least one weakness in decrypting the script of the Ancient Macedonians.
Now, I know that the easiest way is to say that this is another 'FYROM' propaganda, BUT, it will not bring down the result of the study: the middle text is written into Ancient Macedonian and (You can't imagine the satisfaction I'm saying this) not only it is not Greek but it is literally the root of contemporary Macedonian.
OK, I can imagine the Russians and other Slavic nations how proud they'll be, but at the end, it is the today Macedonians that are direct descendents to the Ancient Macedonians no mater how 'Slavic' they are.
How Greek were Macedonians? Oh, come on! Get over it !
Cheers.
PS: And yes Nik, not to forget, it is time for you and all Greeks to start thinking backwards, how to repair the damages done by their politic of the Greekness of the Macedonians. -
Message 46
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 1st April 2008
I am bored to write it again
Aleks, just use your logic.
The land that is called Greece is not a huge place, it is not Russia, it is not France, it is not even the size of Italy! Naturally, back then everyone knew everyone else and most certainly the existence of a barbarian would be instantly noticed ... especially if this barbarian possesed the holy mountain of Olympus, participated in the Olympics and its leaders when visiting holy places like the Delphi claimed relation with several tribes of the south (that obviously had come from Macedonia!).
It strikes us that the first who came out to claim Macedonians were not Greeks were some losers in the Olympics only after Alexander I was already there winning his gold medal and Demosthenis who mostly accused Philip (and not so much the Macedonians as a tribe!) as barbarian with the most fashionable terms such as "isn't he a barbarian? Oh what am I saying, Philip is worse than a barbarian!" (the later being an absolute proof of the Greekness of Philip of course!).
I mean what are we sitting here to discuss? The evident?
Aleksander, you have a Greek name that means the one that keeps the (enemy) men at distance, you might speak a Bulgarian dialect but want to claim relation with Macedonians thus without so much realising it you want to claim relationship with the Greeks. That is not bad in itself as a statement and personally I have no problem if you declared yourself a Greek.
But forging a new hypothetic history were barbarians played in Olympics in pre-Roman times, were Persians were misinterpreting barbarians for Greeks, were barbarians travelled half the earth and only left Greek writtings, and were the name of an ancient kingdom is used to describe the very lands of the fierce enemies of this kingdom in modern days... you know... all that is surreal.
I do not understand what is exactly your belief about the ancient Macedonian language. I would advice you though to search also about the Dorian, the Ionian and the Aeolian dialects. Hence, if you go on to claim Macedonian as foreign to Greek then you can easily claim that Dorian is foreign to Greek and guess how much Aeolian is foreign to Greek.
In fact you will prove that the Greek language never existed and that the most well-monitored continuous language on the earth is just part of our imagination.
I am not being ironic and most certainly I am not kidding! This issue is not so much one of history but mostly of basic human logic... unless of course we take into account the modern affairs from the late 19th century, the effort of Bulgaria, then that of Yugoslavia... and the games of the powerfull ones in front of which even this very basic logic can bent to unimaginable levels. -
Message 47
Posted by Aleksandar_MKD (U2201635) on Wednesday, 16th April 2008
Hello Nik,
Sorry for my delayed answer, I was too much occupied lately to find time to read your post and to answer it.
Nik, I'm fully understand why you don't want to make any comments on the study of the Ancient Macedonian script and language. I do hope that you will read it, analyzed it and most of all I do hope that you'll consult some linguists friends of yours. What I was expecting was discussion on this study. I'm not going to discus on my "Bulgarness" , "Greekness" or "Serbness" because I'm Macedonian as more than three million Macedonians in Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania. We can start it all over again if it is what you want, but at the end it will end up with your negation of the national, cultural and historical identity of more than three million people at the very heart of the Balkan. What Greece did to Macedonians and their country is the biggest genocide and most brutal assimilation the Macedonians have had ever before. The Bulgarian and Serbian people can't even start to compare with Greece on this one. Even the Romans were more merciful. than Greeks toward the Macedonians.
Nik, Greece has almost achieved the 20th century goal: Aegean Macedonia without Macedonians. What is incomprehensible for Macedonians is what are today's goals of Greece continuing its politic of openly promoting the idea of Macedonia without Macedonians. As you'll see, this standings will very soon "fall into water" when Greece will have to explain to the EU and NATO members that there is only a dispute over the name of my country and not on the identity of the people, since Macedonia have agreed that will make compromise with Greece and in order to solve this dispute will allow additional explanatory word near our constitutional name Republic of Macedonia but only if Greece openly redraw the negation of Macedonian identity and finally recognize it.
As for yours stands about the "greekness" of the Macedonians I can ensure you that there are much much more historians that stands on the opposite standings of your ones. Now, I don't want to turn this thread into endless posting of quotes but I can't resist and not to post this ones (for a start):
1. The Greek orator Demosthenes, spoke of Alexander the Great鈥檚 father Philip II as "not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave" (Demosthenes, Third Philippic, 31).
2. Justin, the Roman historian from the 3rd century AD wrote: "Antipater was appointed governor of Macedonia and Greece" (Justin 13.4.5)
3. Arrian, the ancient Greek historian from the 2nd century AD wrote: "Darius's Greek mercenaries attacked the Macedonian phalanx鈥 the Macedonian center did not set to with equal impetus鈥 and the Greeks attacked where they saw that the phalanx had been particularly torn apart. There the action was severe, the Greeks tried to push off the Macedonians into the river and to reserve victory to their own side鈥 There was also some emulation between antagonists of the Greek and Macedonian races" (Arrian 2.10.4-7).
4. Pausanias, the ancient Greek historian from the 2nd century AD wrote: "the united Greeks defeated the Macedonians in Boeotia and again outside Thermopylae forced them into Lamia" (Pausanias 1.1.3)
5. Plutarch, the ancient Greek historian from 1st century AD quoted Alexander鈥檚 words where the king himself separates the Macedonians from the Greeks as distinct nation: 鈥淲hen you see the Greeks walking about among the Macedonians, do they not look to you like demi-gods among so many wild beasts?鈥 (Alex.51.2)
To point out as an argument that the word "philhellen" is equal as hellen i.e. greek is quite an argument. But in lack of arguments sometimes people need to re-read the history in order to create them? To make so many assumptions reading the ancient and roman sources just in order to prove the greeknes of the Macedonians?
Cheers.
PS: I'm looking forward to your post about the study of the ancient Macedonian script and language, the one that was subject of my first post on this thread. -
Message 48
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
Since there is missing some heated discussion in these ancient history threads, I was searching for one older one and fell to that unanswered msg by Aleksandar-mkd... in case he reads it, let him have his answer (cos back then he would think he mentioned any real arguments):
Answering your fantasy-points:
1. Yes Demosthenis said so proving that Macedonia was 100% a Greek state habited by Greek people. No Greek would speak so bad of any barbarian state and that is a fact! Of course dear Aleksandar you fail to notice that no Athenian took seriously Demosthenis and his lies and it took 3 speeches to convince Athenians make war against Macedonians, not because there "barbarians" but because then they had hit their interests in Chalkidiki (lost their allied cities). You fail also to notice even the existence of Aishunis, the opponent of Demosthenis for whom hald of Athens voted and who not only considered Macedonians Greek but also that Philip should unite all Greeks under his flag to make war against barbarians. Once Demosthenis tried to sue him but quickly put his tail under his legs and left... so much Athenians believed his lies...
2. Justin the Roman historian? Of 300 A.D. You must be joking! Romans hated 3 types of Greeks : Macedonians, Epirots and Corintians. You know why? Because they hated 1 type of Greeks - those that had fought them. Such Roman terminology is not at all of any interest to our discussion. Earlier Romans after conquest of Greek lands, had divided Macedonia and placed its parts within the administration of regions that included largely irrelevant parts in the north (i.e. in your FYROMian country that habitated by the enemies of Macedonia - still today the same, don't you find it funny?). That means absolutely nothing in terms to what were the real Macedonians. In Justin's time, Macedonia was a name used actually for all South Eastern Europe from Slovenia to Ukraine... thus not very enlightening.
3. Yes, so? Greeks had also attacked the 300 Spartans in Thermopyles. And Greek navy had attacked Athenian and Corinthian ships in Salamina. So? According to your as-if point Spartans, Athenians and Corinthians were not Greeks? What you cannot understand is that back then people were not described by their nation but by their tribe. Only when the latter was not possible, the description went to the level of nation. We have 100s of examples like this like when Spartans (never mentioned as Greeks!) led the "Greeks" (as if Spartans were not Greeks themselves) in Thermopyles or when Athenian Xenophon led the "Greeks" through the Persian Empire. In this case we have the Greek mercenaries that were from various tribes who could not be named by their tribes, thus necessarily bunched as "Greeks" and on the other hand Alexander's army that was largely from 1 tribe, the Macedonians. That does not say anything against the fact that Macedonians were Greeks (and so were Spartans earlier in Thermopyles). It is just that writers back then did not feel the need to call them so just in case some Slavic peope 2000 years might want to call Alexander's horse a "Zastava"... I also noticed your ignorance when you translated the word "phyli" (i.e. tribe) as "race" in a hope to pass it as if Macedonians were really very different than other Greeks. Ridiculous!
4. Some united Greeks... defeated another Greek tribe... and so what? Was it the first or the last time that Greeks fought intra-ethnic wars? Again refer to my above point 3. It is the same thing.
5. Again and again the same thing. Refer to 4 that refers to 3.
point below 5. Aleksandar how many times do I need to tell you that the word "philellin" was used for the first time for a non-Greek in 1830 to describe those Europeans that aided the Greek revolution. Back in ancient times the title was given to those Greeks that strived for a greater Greek integration. The fact that it was given to Philip only comes as another proof that he was Greek and one of the best of them.
PS: What study of the ancient Macedonian language? The Egyptian Rosetta column you mentioned is so well studied and known together with the languages mentioned on it. The "demotic" you mention was simply Egyptian demotic. You do not have to search that far into the fantasy realm to search for the Macedonian language.
For the Macedonian language we know it. We have 100,000 graves with 10,000s of names on them of people from all social classes, all Greek. All Macedonia is full of ruins of temples and buildings with writings, all Greek. We have ruins from Greece to India, all Greek. We have even full texts like the "katadesmos", all Greek.
But you simply ignore to even discuss on them because it is Greek... well what do you expect Aleksandar? It would be Egyptian or Indian? Use your logic. -
Message 49
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
to comment also on the other terrible things you wrote... accusing Greece of "genocide" is not only an empty accusation, not only a blatant lie but the most disgusting thing you can say when your Bulgarian grandfathers fought for greater Bulgaria sending to our land their terrorist komitatzides that commited the worst crimes all that not even 100 years ago. You know you a have such a shameful history but you just cannot help and keep telling lies. Who tried to do a genocide Aleksandar is very obvious: I do not think that it was Greeks that allied with Turkish criminals, Bulgarian komitatzides, German Nazis and Italian Fascists and then Communists? You have a nice collection of allies there isn't it? And you had such a nice collection of allies only because of your unbelievable hatred against Greeks, for your only aim was to ethnically cleanse Macedonia of its population, Greeks.
Wanna know who lived in Macedonia prior to liberation from Ottomans? Just take the Ottoman survey of 1903. Months after the bulgarian-originated false revolution of Iliden. It mentions even the smallest of tribes from middle-Greece up to southern Serbia... however it fails to mention any Macedonian nation, for the simple reason that it did not exist as no-one would declare himself as Macedonian. despite the fact that the survey included very disparate lands from Greek lands (Macedonia) to slavic lands (modern FYROM, Serbia, Bulgaria), despite the fact that Greeks were termed only those that spoke only Greek and not those that spoke Greek and Bulgarian (many people spoke both), despite the fact that many Greeks from Macedonia had participated in the 1821 revolution and established themselves in southern Greece, despite there was a continuous movement of Greeks to the south to escape Ottoman repression, despite the fact that Ottomans conducted Greek-hunting in the region for many decades under fear of Greeks joining their brothers in the south (why they did not fear Bulgaroslavs I wonder? Obviously because these were much fewer and much more obedient) culminating in the Iliden reprisals where Ottomans punished the Bulgarian revolt by ... killing a massive number of Greeks, despite the fact that it was to the interest of Ottomans to mention a small number of Greeks and a large number of Bulgaroslavs (and that is what they actually did in the survey... ... ... ... this survey indicated that Greeks were still the overuling population in the area and that even if you added Ottomans and all the rest of tribes to Slavobulgarians together they were not as many as the Greeks. So according to you these slavobulgarians were the real Macedonians and not the massive Greek populations that lived there? Absolutely amazing!
Why you wonder why Aleksandar? Macedonia is a Greek land. And it is 1 land, that is around te Aegean sea. There is no other Macedonia that reaches to Poland or Finland. Your FYROMian lands were never and will never be Macedonia. They are Monkeydonia ("monkey" is the term for a copy-cat product that uses the brand-name of a normal product) and you Monkeydonians, a mix of people that cannot even tell the difference between a sardine and an octapus and have ambitions of having access to the sea and claiming "rightfull ownership of the north Aegean sea". Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable.
Do not speak too much about NATO (the friend of all rogue countries currently) in hopes of letting you loose again invading other people's countries. In your position I would not hope so. Your country is half Albanians and currently Albanians are more favoured in NATO than Slavo-bulgarians since Bulgarians are deemed too Russo-philes, so just be careful if your hopes do not turn into a nightmare with your country divided.
What you have to do is what some political people of your country have done: admit the truth, that you are Slavs and that you have nothing to do with ancient or modern Macedonia. Your ancient president Kiro Glogorof had admitted it and said that "FYROM needed the name "macedonia" because it is a Greek name, just to keep the FYROMian country united and away from division into Bulgarian and Albanian parts. Your ambassadors in foreign countries had admitted the same. Your last president is now a proud Bulgarian citizen and currently into politics in Bulgaria (something that is unbelievable for any ex-president of any other European country). So much for your ethnicity and identity... Need to say more? -
Message 50
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Monday, 9th February 2009
Did Demosthenes believe the Macedonians were barbarians?
No. Proponents of the thesis that Macedonians spoke a non-greek language accept (usually...) that the Macedonian kings were Greeks but were ruling non-Greek people. Given the evidence that has been found in the past years from archaeological excavations they have started claiming that the kings and the upper-class had been Greek-speakers but the lower class was not.
Now to explain the "NO". One may claim that it should have been a "YES" and they would point to the "To Philippos" speech of the orator where he claimed that from these barbarian Macedonians one could not even buy slaves. I will let Professor A. Holm in his work "The history of Greece from its commencement to the close of the independence of the Greek nation", translated from German, London New York, Macmillan, 1894-1898, Volume III, page 206 to explain this passage from the speech of Demosthenes:
"That the Greeks did not consider the Macedonians as barbarians is proved involuntarily by Demosthenes (To Philippos 3, 31) where he states that "OYD ANDRAPODON SPOYDAION HN PROTEROY" from Macedonia, which stripped of its rhetoric means the Macedonians did not provide the Greeks with slaves, the meaning of which of course was that the Macedonians were not considered barbarians, like the Thracians, Phrygians..."
Given this, the discussion below seems to be redundant.
Demosthenes, an Athenian orator and politician in various speeches of his and most notably in Olynthiakos G' and later, when it was very clear to him that the power of Athens was fading away and Macedonia was the new power in the Hellenic world, accused Philippos II of many things including that of being barbarian. This is not surprising for Demosthenes who spent his whole life advocating the superiority of Athens over the other Hellenic states, even if that required that some Greek city-states were to be destroyed or to suffer for Athens to remain the leader of Greece [See, For the Megalopolitans,5].
In his Third Olynthiakos, 16, Demosthenes wrote
"Is he (Philippos) not our enemy? Are not our possessions in his hands? Is he not a barbarian? Is he not anything that you choose to call him? In God's name, when we have let everything go, when we have all but put everything into his hands, shall we then inquire at large who is responsible for it all?"
There are no explicit accusations of Macedonians as a whole of being so (barbarians). Given that such an assertion against Philippos is shared by no one and given so many references in antiquity to his descent [Herodotos, Thucydides, Isocrates, Hesiodos, Hellanikos] in various texts any other discussion on this question seems pointless. In one translation of this speech by John Edwin Santys in "The first Philippic and the Olynthiacs of Demosthenes", Macmillan and Co, the translator commented on this passage Argos [Herodotos VIII 137, IX 45, Thucydides II 99,2, V 80,2] and one of Philip's ancestors, Alexander A', had as a Greek been allowed to compete at the Olympic games [Herodotos V 22]. Demosthenes, however, in his hatred of Philip, never acknowledges his Greek descent. ... of breath as he gasps out this final and comprehensive phrase of vituperation. In such a spasmodic utterance no one need be surprised either at the presence of hiatus or at the concurrence of several short syllables". Those who believe that this phrase of Demosthenes is not a term of abuse but truth are those who believe that President-elect Clinton is indeed 'Bozo' as President Bush claimed, which I doubt that even President Bush believes.
There is also another reason that this accusation against Philippos on behalf of Demosthenes was more of a figure of speech than anything else.
Demosthenes mother (or his maternal grandmother) was a Skythian, a non-Greek and thus a non-Athenian. Had his accusation been taken seriously we could have been accused and for a good reason of being a barbarian himself.
In fact Aeschines (On the Embassy, 78) expressed this opinion by saying ".... KAI TAYTA, V DHMOSUENES, EK TVN NOMADVN SKYUVN TO PROS MHTROS VN GENOS", that is, "you, Demosthenes, a descendant through your mother of the nomad Skythians" as well as (Against Ctesiphon, 172) "TA D' APO THS MHTROS [DHMOSUENHS] SKYUHS, BARBAROS, ELLHNIZVN TH FVNH" that is, "and by his mother's side [Demosthenes is] a Scythian, a Greek speaking Barbarian", and earlier in that passage Aeschines accused Demothenes of being a slanderer "EJ' HS YMIN O PERIERGOS KAI SYKOFANTHS [DEMOSTHENES] GEGENHTAI". [Some authors believe that Kleovouli, mother of Demosthenes, was daughter of Gylon who settled in Crimaea and married a Scythian woman.]
Let alone the fact that Demosthenes, an 'honorable' Athenian citizen, was bribed later by the Persians (barbarians) to write speeches against Philippos and at the same time was also accusing Philippos of bribing Athenians and various Athenians of being bribed by Philippos. Demosthenes would also look very silly since another Athenian, Isocrates, in, To Philippos,108 wrote considered Philippos an Hellen and urged him to unite all Hellenes and lead them in a war against the Barbarians.
In one of his speeches, On the Embassy 305, Demosthenes in his effort to accuse orator Aeschines of inconsistent and possibly traitorous behavior accused Aeschines of calling Philippos 'barbarian' and 'devil'. In his Third Philippic, 31, Demosthenes accused Philippos of being "he is a pestilent Macedonian, from whose country it used not to be possible to buy even a slave of any value" [There were no slaves in the Macedonian state as opposed to other greek city-states]. On the other hand in the Third Olynthiac Demosthenes commended the Athenians on extracting 10,000 talents from Macedonia and bringing them into the Acropolis many years earlier, in the fifth century BC.
Accusations by Aeschines on the past and present behavior of Demosthenes such as of inflicting wounds on himself and bringing suit for malicious assault, (in Against Ctesiphon, 212), of becoming a teacher in order to extract large amounts of money from his pupils (in Against Timarchus, 171), of taking money from his clients for writing speeches to be delivered in court and then revealing the contents of these speeches to their opponents (in On the Embassy, 165), of belittling young Alexander by claiming that he would prove incompetent and would never stir out of Macedonia (Against Ctesiphon 160), of later seeking favor from Alexander (same,162), of his insincerity and cowardice (against Ctesiphon 150-152), are omitted.
The following remark made by an ancient writer commenting on Demosthenes' accusation of Philippos (Olynthiakos G' 16) being a barbarian highlights the beliefs of all other Greeks as well as the real beliefs of Demosthenes:
"YBRISAI TOYTON (meaning FILIPPON DEMOSUENHS) BOYLOMENOS KALEIN BARBARON, EPEI TO ALHUES SKOPHSEI, EYRHSEI AYTON ELLHNAN ARGEION KAI APO HRAKLEOYS TO GENOS KATAGOMENON, VS PANTES OI ISTORIKOI MARTYROYSIN...".
In short the accusation on behalf of Demosthenes was just a slander since every historian at that time knew that Philippos was Greek in descent.
Is there any reference by Demosthenes to an incident that can lead us to conclude that he and his fellow Athenians believed that Macedonians indeed spoke a greek dialect?
Yes. Demosthenes in a speech of his (in Greek: PERI THS PARAPRESBEIAS[On the Embassy?] 197,229) described an incident in which Frynonas, an Athenian, while traveling to Olympia had his luggage taken by Macedonian soldiers. Frynonas acted later as an Athenian ambassador to Philippos II. Philippos II ordered his soldiers to return the taken property to Frynonans and apologized for his soldiers not knowing that that time was a period of religious festivities. Had the Macedonian soldiers not spoken a greek dialect Philippos II would have used that as an excuse, Demosthenes would have been very keen to pointing this out in his speech, and taken up with great delight, as we may guess, the opportunity to accuse not only Philippos but also his soldiers of barbarian behavior. Nevertheless, he didn't do that because he knew that the Macedonians spoke a greek dialect.
No lack of understanding between the Macedonians and the Athenians at that time (at the time that the alleged "hellenization" of Macedonians was about to begin) has been reported in any ancient text.
Demosthenes, as an ambassador of Athens visited Macedonia twice. This happened before his now famous (or infamous) speeches against Philippos. During his two visits and afterwards never complained of Macedonians being "barbarians", or speaking a non-greek language. On the contrary we was dazzled by the riches of the palace of Philippos in Pella.
Was the Macedonian tongue a greek dialect or not?
Yes it was a greek (Doric) dialect.
We shall break this discussion into two parts. The first one consists of evidence found prior to the excavations in Vergina by the late Professor Manolis Andronikos. The second one consists of evidence found mainly since then. This evidence leads beyond any doubt to the conclusion that the Macedonians spoke a greek dialect which was basically a Doric one, it borrowed words and was influenced by the Aeolic dialect spoken by the Thessalians neighbors of Macedonians, and also borrowed few words of Phrygic and Illyrian origin.
The Thessalians (Aeolic) influence convinced some researchers that the genealogy of Makedon given by Hellanikos (see Question 3) was more accurate than that given by Hesiodos.
In the volume "Macedonia: 4000 years of Greek history and civilization" Professor M. Sakellariou examined the words known to be unique in the Macedonian dialect of greek and related their root to the roots of words of other Greek dialects. Summarizing, many of the words that were previously considered of non-Greek origin were also in (rare) use in other parts of Greece.
There have been made various claims that the Macedonians up to some time in the 4th century BC used to speak a non-Greek language and at that time (around 340BC) were 'hellenized' by the Athenians and thus learned how to speak the attic dialect. These claims can be easily proved to be totally false even if one uses only pre-Vergina evidence.
Below we present various views on the topic.
Pre-Vergina evidence.
Fr. Sturz (in "De Dialecto Macedonica et Alexandrina", 1808) concluded that the Macedonian tongue was a greek Doric dialect. August Flick, O. Hoffmann, Otto Abel, and Karl Belloch, as well as George Busolt, Fritz Geyer, Ulrich Wilcken, Helmuth Berve, Gustave Glotz, P. Roussel, P Pouquet, A Jarde, R Cohen, J. Bury, St. Casson, W. Heurtley, D. Hogarth, J. de Waele, just to name a few (non-Greek) historians and archaeologists, shared the same views.
On the other hand, there were some historians and writers such as M. Vasmer (Revue du ministere d' instruction publique de Russie, 1908), P Kretschmer and Bulgarians G. Kazarow and Vlad. Georgiev that rejected this thesis. Georgiev attempted to show that Macedonians were member of a Thracoillyrian nation thus speaking Illyrian, a non-greek language. That this was not the case was shown in Question 6. G Weigand also shared the opinions of these authors. G. Hatzidakes rejected these theses in various texts and among them in "Zur Abstammung der alten Makedonier (eine ethnologische Studie)". For more details we refer to Daskalakis (page 104).
Coins found in Macedonia have inscriptions in greek and are dated from the early 5th BC century. Such found coins are the following ones.
An octadrachm of Alexander I (circa 478BC).
Coins from the reign of Archelaos (413-399BC) and Amyntas III (393-370BC).
the ring of Sindos with the word Gk:'DVRON' (Gift) dated around 480BC.
These coins are dated well before 340BC, the time of the alleged "hellenization" of Macedonians.
Macedonians had their own month names. If one accepts the thesis that Macedonian were 'hellenized' by the Athenians some time around 340BC hen one can safely assume that these names must be identical to those used by the Athenians. If not, they would show the linguistic roots of the Macedonians prior to their alleged who claimed that Dorians and Macedonians belonged to the same tribe (Herodotus claimed that the Macedonians who descended to southern Greece after crossing Doris became known as Dorians) and thus Macedonians were a Greek tribe, the month names of Macedonians were Greek and were different from the ones used by the Athenians. The list of these names used by the Macedonians and the list of month names of the Lacedaemonians (who were Dorians) have a common intersection, the names Artemisios and Apellaios.
Persians when first occupied Macedonia during their conquests in Europe around 510-480BC described the people living in Macedonia as "The Greeks wearing a shield-like hat" and who were non other than the Macedonians themselves. This incident occurred long before the alleged "hellenization" of Macedonians.
It is believed that the worship of the 12 Olympian Gods had started in Macedonia (as related to their place of "residence". Mountain Olympus is located in Pieria and both these names are Greek. It is claimed the magnificent view of Mt. Olympus when viewed from Macedonia, while its view from the south (Thessaly) is hindered by other mountains, inspired the Macedonians and from the other Greeks to consider this mountain the residence of their Gods.
Athenian comedies used to make fun of the idioms and the dialects of other Greeks like those of Spartans, Boeoteans and of course Macedonians. Some time in the 5th century BC a comedy entitled "Pausanias or Macedonians?" written by the Athenian Strattis was played in Athens. In various parts of this comedy a Macedonian explains how various words of the attic dialect are called in the Macedonian dialect.
It can be inferred from these references that Macedonians spoke a Doric Greek dialect. In a work of the ancient writer Athenaios, one can find samples of the work of Strattis. In an article written by A. Koerte quoting Athenaios VII,323b we can find in that comedy of Strattis the following conversation:
"STRATTIS GOYN EN MAKEDOSIN EROMENOU TINOS ATTIKOY VS AGNOOYNTOS TO ONOMA KAI LEGONTOS: H SFYRAINA D' ESTI TIS;" FHSIN O ETEROS " KESTRAN MEN YMMES VTTIKOI KIKLHSKETE".
In English (as it appeared in the article by M. Sakellariou) an Athenian asks "sledfish, what do you mean?" and a Macedonian replies "wha ye Attics ca' a hammer-fush, ma freen" i.e. in my own words, which I hope do not change the meaning of this phrase "what you Attics call a hammer-fush, (we call a) freen".
One can appreciate the value of the Macedonian's reply for the object under discussion if he does not forget that as is clear from many passages in Aristophanes the attic comedians made their non-Greeks speak broken Greek with an a mixture of barbarian words (some of them imaginary) while Lacedaemonians, Boeotians, Macedonians and other Greeks spoke their own dialects. The Macedonian's reply is in good Greek with dialect (ymmes, sfyraina) and archaizing elements (kiklhskete). Both YMMES and SFYRAINA are not attic words but they are Greek. Therefore claims that Athenians "hellenized" Macedonians seem to be baseless. It is also noted that these words were used by the Macedonians some time in the 5th century BC that is at least 50 years before their alleged hellenization.
An ambassador from Macedonia speaking to the Aetolians in 200BC observed that the Macedonians, the Aetolians and the Arkanians all spoke the same language.
The expressions "aneboa MAKEDONISTI", "MAKEDONISTI th fvnh" have been taken by opponents of the thesis that the Macedonians were Greeks as indicating that their language differed from Greek. One can claim that these formulation indicate a Greek dialect (cf [In Greek] "aiolizein th fvnh", "attikizei", "attikisti", "boivtiazein","dvrizein" etc).
To those who are more interested in the characteristics of the dialect of Greek spoken by the Macedonians the article by M. Sakellariou in "Macedonia: 4000 years of Greek history and civilization" is available on request. In general few words of non-greek origin were used in the Macedonian dialect of greek an most of these words were proper names. Some of them were names of Egyptian deities worshipped in Macedonia after the 3rd century BC. Even in the times of Herodotos (II 153, III 27, IV 155, VI 27) barbarian (non-greek) names were in use by Greeks. Strabo VII 7,1 (C321) also mentioned various names of non-greek origin such as KEKROPS (Greek: KEKROC) KODROS, AIKLOS (Gk: A.I.KLOS), KOTHOS (Gk: KOUOS), DRYMAS (Gk: DRYMAS) KRINAKOS (Gk: KRINAKOS).
It should also be mentioned that many place-names in ancient Macedonia (and modern-day Macedonia of Greece) are of Greek origin and of use in other areas of Greece as well. Such names are: Argos (Gk: ARGOS), also found in Thessaly and Peloponnesos. Arnissa(Gk: ARNISSA) reminds of Arnen (Gk: ARNHN) of Thessaly and Boeotia. Arethoussa (Gk: AREUOYSSA) also found in Ithaca, Boeotia, Syracuses. Prasias a lake and a city name is also found in Athens as PRASIAI, and many other ones (such as Oedomenae, Petra, Fila, Gortynia, Pynda etc).
Many other words of the Macedonian dialect are of ancient Doric origin such as [the Macedonian Doric and attic equivalent names are shown in Greek only]: santoria = svthria, zereuron = bereuron, barauron xarvn = xairvn arkon = argos dvraj = uvraj danon = uanon , uanatos kadaron = kauaron sarisa = dory (from the verb sairv, sarvnv) etc. Some other words of the Macedonian dialect of greek can be traced back in the 主播大秀ric poems: amalos = apalos indea = meshmbrian ( indion hmar) leykanih = laimos lisson = omalon , leion (lygos = rabdos).
Fore more details see the work of Geyer Fr., where he showed that the names of Macedonian months and festivities although they could not be found anywhere in classic Greece were archaic Greek ones and showed the Doric origin of the Macedonians.
The fact that Macedonians participated in various celebrations like the Amphictyonies and the Phocica also show the belief of themselves and the other Greeks in their origin. It is for these reasons that Professor F. Papazoglou in "Historija Hellenizma", Belgrade, 1967 claimed that Macedonians were Greeks, a claim also supported by Heinz Kreissing in "Povijest Hellenizma", Zagreb, 1988.
Prof. Arnold Toynbee in "The Greeks and their Heritages", Oxford University Press, 1981 also claimed that ancient Macedonians were Greeks.
Post-Vergina evidence.
The excavations in Vergina have brought to light many tombs that buried ancient Macedonians. There are inscription on these tombs with the names of the deceased person and those of his/her progenitors. All names found so far have been Greek. Given that some of these tombs are dated from the 350BC era, one can conclude that by some time in late 5th century Macedonians have been naming their children with Greek names. And since contacts with the Athenians were rare to non-existent at that time one can safely conclude that claims that Macedonians were not Greeks and were only 'hellenized' in the 4th century BC are false.
Published information on the excavations in Vergina is mostly in the form of papers submitted to various conferences.
)"ANEBOA MAKEDONISTI" ?
Those who claim that the Macedonians were not a Greek tribe considered this expression as evidence that the language of the Macedonians was a non-greek one. Previous questions (Question 10) discussed the refutation of this thesis in more detail. A discussion of this phrase only will be dealt here. It is based on that of the book by Daskalakis (see references).
The expression "ANEBOA MAKEDONISTI" was first found in the works of Plutarchos (ALEXANDORS LI, 4) and that of the Latin Kurtius Rufus. The phrase is found in the following passage [ In Greek: ]
"TVN DE SVMATOFYLAKVN ENOS, ARISTOFANOYS, FUASANTOS YFELESUAI, KAI TVN ALLVN PERIEXONTVN KAI DEOMENVN, ANAPHDHSAS (cf Alexandros) ANEBOA MAKEDONISTI KALVN TOYS YPASPISTAS (TOYTO D' HN SYMBOLO UORYBOU MEGALOU), KAI TON SALPIGKTHN EKELEYSE SAHMAINEIN, KAI PYJ EPAISEN, VS DIATRIBONTA KAI MH BOYLOMENON..."
On the other hand Arrhianos, whose sources included lost works of Alexander's co-fighters and eye witnesses, describing this episode that resulted in the death of Kleitos used the following phrase: " ALEJANDROS DE EBOA ANAKALVN TOYS YPASPISTAS". No reference to MAKEDONISTI appeared in Arrhianos' version of the episode. This may lead to the conclusion that the word "MAKEDONISTI" was somehow added at some later time, or the interpretation that has been given to it by some translators was not the one intended by Plutarchos. It is also noted that references to the expression "Macedonia and the other Greece" are numerous in his work.
In Plutarchos' rendition of the episode the distinction between ANEBOA (called, shouted, roared) and KALVN (calling) is evident. Given the explanatory statement "TOYTO D' HN SYMBOLO UORYBOY MEGALOY" ('this was a sign of great noise') it can be concluded that ANEBOA referred to some kind of password used by ALEXANDER the Great to call his YPASPISTAS (sort of bodyguards) in cases of emergencies only, that is why its use caused great disturbance.
The absence of MAKEDONISTI in Arrhianos' rendition seems to agree with this interpretation. Let alone the fact that following this incident Alexander talked to his YPASPISTAS in attic greek. The expression "aneboa makedonisti", if this indeed appeared in the original text, is no more different from other similar expression "aiolizein th fvnh", "attikizei", "attikisti", "boivtiazein","dvrizein" which were used to denote various dialects of ancient greek.
A Latin writer Kurtius (other than the aforementioned Kurtius Rufus) gave a description of this episode similar to that of Arrhianos. No reference to MAKEDONISTI was made by him and he only wrote "that Alexander ordered via a trumpet call his soldiers to gather outside the royal tent".
There is another passage in the work of Kurtius Rufus describing the trial of Filotas which is being used by proponents of the thesis that the Macedonians spoke a non-greek language. Allegedly Filotas during his trial used the attic dialect forcing Alexander to accuse him of not using his (Filotas's) mother tongue (Macedonian, supposedly a non-greek language). Subsequently, Alexander also accused Filotas of being unwilling to learn how to speak his mother tongue! This passage contains several contradictions notwithstanding the one that Filotas was not capable of speaking his mother tongue. Alexander on the other hand, allegedly accuses Filotas of detesting the Macedonian dialect but according to Filotas' reply this accusation is spelled by Alexander in the attic rather than the Macedonian dialect! This fact alone, had this episode really happened, could have been used against Alexander himself as a counter argument and accusation. It is this reference to Alexander that made H. Bardon, publisher of Rufus's works to wonder how it was possible for Alexander to fall in such a contradiction and to accuse others of something that he himself was fighting for.
Neither Arrhianos, who lived closer to the era this episode occurred, nor Plutarchos present this incident mentioned in the work of Kurtius Rufus. H. Bardon, French publisher of Rufus's works (pub. Belles Lettres vol 1 page 201 note 1) commenting on the alleged speech of Filotas said that Kurtius Rufus was accustomed to rhetoric artifices and as a result historic truth suffered in that part of his work. All in all it can be safely concluded that this passage was more of a product of the rhetoric talents of Rufus thus attributing to Filotas a speech Filotas never gave rather than presenting the actual events. Writers who lived well before Rufus and close to the time of the incident were not aware of such a speech by Filotas.
Q12) There is a reference in a work by Pausanias that may give the impression that Macedonians, around 214-213BC, were speaking a non-Greek language.
Advocates of the thesis that the Macedonian spoke a non-greek language claim that this language was spoken by them up to some time in mid 4th century BC. At that time Macedonians within few years were fully hellenized and since then they have been speaking Greek.
Long but relevant Parenthesis. Skip it if not interested: Some of these advocates accept a Skopjan point of view that all Macedonians perished and thus vanished when Slavs first appeared in the Balkan peninsula in the 7th century AD. All of a sudden these new Slavs became heir-apparents of the Macedonians, were granted presumably by Marshall Tito the exclusive right to be called 'Macedonians' and named the Bulgarian idiom also consisting of Greek, Turkish, and Albanian words formed at least 1000 years after their descent to the Balkans "the Macedonian language".
Some of them, possibly all, claim that this Slavic origin language was the language spoken by the Macedonians before the Cyrillic alphabet was introduced to these and other Slavs along with many greek words by two Macedonian (Greek) brothers, Kontantinos (later called Cyril) and Methodios from Thessaloniki. It is quite interesting to know how these Macedonian brothers escaped the fate of other fellow Macedonians and didn't perish during the descent of Slavs in the Balkan peninsula, as the advocates of Skopjan claimed that it had happened.
According to Pausanias (Messenians IV 29, 1) the residents of Messene a night around 214-213BC first thought that the Lacedaemonians had attacked them. Later, by the arms and the voices, realized that those who attacked them were soldiers led by king Demetrios. Since at that time a Demetrios was King of Macedonia, it was assumed that the attackers were Macedonians. Some authors claimed that the 'voices' reference was to mean that the Macedonians (attackers) were speaking a non-greek language at that time, an argument not accepted for the Macedonians of that time by almost everyone.
Later on, it was realized that the Demetrios in question was not the king of Macedonia, son of Philippos E', but Demetrios the Pharian, an Illyrian, who was later killed during this campaign against Messene.
Who may have 'hellenized' ancient Macedonians, if we assume, despite proof for the contrary, that they were not a greek tribe ?
This is a question that none could give an answer. Assuming that ancient Macedonians were not speaking Greek the large number of Doric and thus non-attic words found in their spoken language, let alone place-names, month-names, attributes to Gods and Goddesses, festival names etc seem to zero the probability that Athenians were the ones who hellenized them. The large number of archaic greek words not used by other Greeks of that time preclude any other greek city-state or kingdom of the classic times to be responsible for that alleged 'hellenization'. Remembering the not so friendly relations between the Macedonians and the Athenians, the vastness of the Macedonian kingdom as opposed to that of the city state of Athens, and its population -Macedonians were able to form sizeable armies, by Greek standards- it is highly unlikely that any other Greek state or Athens could have undertaken such an enormous task and had it completed in a 10-20 year period.
On the other hand, Alexander A' when he initiated his otherwise brief contacts with the Greeks in the South he was able to talk to them in Greek fluently. If Macedonians were to be hellenized in the 4th century BC there would have been no way for Alexander A' to speak greek. If he and his family were the only Greek speakers in Macedonia it would have been highly unlikely that he and his family had retained the ability to speak Greek fluently.
One of the tragedies Euripides first presented in Macedonia was Iphigeneia in Aulis and Ekavi. In Iphigeneia (1400) and Ekavi (1199) "OYPOT' AN FILON / TO BARBARON GENOIT' AN ELLHSIN GENOS / OYD AN DYNAITO", the greek superiority over the Barbarians was highlighted. It would have been be too dangerous for him to express such opinions to a non-greek audience (if Macedonians were not Greek and spoke a non-Greek language). Let alone the fact that the language of his tragedies was Greek.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 听to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
主播大秀 iD
主播大秀 navigation
主播大秀 links
主播大秀 漏 2014 The 主播大秀 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.