Who are the ancient Macedonians ?

btw. i think the norms spoke early french as administrative lang...the masses must have been illiterate-maybe like the mk ones?

and can we judge the nationality by that people's religion?

Originally posted by krater   and that proto-greek language: the greek say macedonians spoke greek...their language was similar, but again the celtic and teutonic lngs were also similar back then...?

It is not the Greeks specifically that believe that. The linguists have coined the language with an ISO CODE. The artifacts support this. Some decades ago there were no findings in the pre-attic language of Macedonia, so some were skeptical that the native language was Greek. However, in our days, the inscriptions are thousands and amongst them there are such written in the local dialect which is a variant of Western Greek.

Have a look here: http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/gis?region=4

There are over 8500 inscriptions now from Macedonia on the Cornell university archives. You can draw your conclutions and please continue that issue on the linguistic forum.

Originally posted by krater this man called ''highlander'', i guess it couldn't be the ''same'' as ''jesus'' meaning ''god saves''... i mean SOME PEOPLE would argue about Hughlander's and Jesus' ''objective'' existance?

I don't get what you're trying to say or at least this is irrelevant no matter why that guy called that way. He was not a god or saviour. Just a leader of a tribe that migrated due to a physical dissaster known in mythology as "Deucalions flood". He was no superman.

i dont know, but somehow i ''feel'' sth about the lifestyle issue? there're some historical examples it seems, which show that ls is essential for us to see the genealogy of a people.

you say their leader was called macedon? so it's false that macedonia means highlands in greek?

Originally posted by amanti really you have analised it well? i hope so but i am asking you why alexander 1 (first) was not allowed to participated in the olimpic games in that times?

Yes, it has been analyzed well; just read the first pages of this thread. Alexander I participated in the Olympic games.

Originally posted by amanti what Demosten had said to Philip when he went to qonquer Greece...

First, it's Demosthenes; and second, Demosthenes' words have been debated a lot in this very thread. It is boring saying the same things over and over again, without bringing anything new to the discussion.


Edited by Neoptolemos - 10-Mar-2007 at 15:45

Originally posted by amanti for that time the name "Barbars" was given the tribes that had not greek culture. That is completely true becouse in olimpic games were allowed to participate only the tribes with greek culture and not the others one

And there is the contradiction. They participated in the Olympics. We have already analyzed this.

Barbaros doesn't mean simply non-Greek:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057;query=entry%3D%2319347;layout=;loc=barba%5Erokto%2Fnos

Originally posted by liburni  well done brasidas! i agree with u couse not only alexander was called as barbarian but also all the others "nations" were called so by HERODOTIS......:>THIS means clearly that they weren"t greece people the politicans have made the history as they wanted it and not according to facts. if barbarian were not greek,what other tribus takes this nick that time except illyrians that lived near them????....and also had their identity and culture as well????!!!! the others must think at lest according to your point of view and not almost from the books written rercently.............

i suggest you read the whole thread before dropping in. AFAIK 'Barbarian' and its use isn't always ethnic, it may also be political or a dialectal put down. Either way the debate isn't as simple as that one argument


Edited by Leonidas - 26-Feb-2007 at 06:50

Whenever the issue of ancient Macedonian greekness arises, i notice the same contradiction over and over. Until now as we all know all the archaeological inscriptions found and mostly Pella's curse tablet of 4th cent. BC, which is the only ancient 'Macedonian' text we have, are proving that Macedonians spoke a dialect related to North-West Greek, and this is a something the entirety of the scientific community agrees on.

Now, if archaeologists discover eg. an inscription written in a different language, and its older than the existing ones, this is obviously evidence that Macedonia had a language/dialect which was not greek.

But if they dont, as they havent found all these decades, this is only taken as evidence, that ancient Macedonia was simply 'Hellenized'.

In other words, according to what people claim, if they find archaeological discoveries, older than the existing in a different language that's proof Macedonia wasnt greek and if they dont, its proof Macedonia was 'hellenized' therefore it wasnt greek again.

Same contradiction exists with other arguments i read every now and then about Alexander declaring in every chance he was given that he was greek. The explanation of some is usually that Alexander was doing "propaganda".

All these examples, mean exactly, nothing at all could be accepted as evidence that Macedonians were of greek origin since only evidence that they were not is counted.

It is logical that in order to perform a genuine discussion of a theory people must permit the possibility of evidence that would count against it. If you do not, the discussion cannot be genuine or constructive, because a discussion that is run with the presumption that nothing could count as a failure of a point is no real discussion at all, but rather its a joke.

Beware of the above guys, next time anyone will use the "Hellenization" argument against you

http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/forum/ancient-macedonian-history/1822-hellenization-argument-contradiction.html#post15752