Who are the ancient Maced&#111;nians ?

Chieftain

Hegemom

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Greek Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460

Quote

Topic: Who are the ancient Macedonians ?
Posted: 26-Oct-2006 at 01:42

Sharrukin the Anton just destroy the thread.He succeded and as I see the other mods and adm cover him.We had the most accurate, credit and historical debate as about the thread.But as I see the trolling and the spamming won

For the story and in order see and other people what happened please don't delete rhe posts.

Thanks for the debate

Edited by akritas - 26-Oct-2006 at 01:47

Sharrukin

Chieftain

Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314

Quote

Posted: 26-Oct-2006 at 03:49

Istor the Macedonian

@Sharoukin

Have you read what I wrote about the number of barbarians� attempts to participate to the games?

If memory serves, it had to do with the "shiningness" of the Games, which is not a proper response. If this is not what you are referring to, than what are you talking about?

Alexander doesn�t say �ruler of Macedonia�, but �ruler of Macedonians� (do you really have to change Herodotus� words?).

I only read what the translation says. Granted that translations are not always reliable, but I don't have the arrogance to second guess them, unless there is a valid reason for this either by you or by others. Okay, I can only agree that "Makedonon huparchos" should be translated, as "Macedonian ruler (or viceroy)". It still does not account as to why Herodotus only uses Makednon for Dorians, and not for Macedonians, and visa versa.

And my question wasn�t about what he said but about the wideness of the word �Μακεδόνων = of Macedonians� he used. Did he include Makednoi in the people ruled by him who called them �Macedonian�?

No.

Since you don�t answer, I suppose that you don�t have an answer and thus you accept that the term Macedonians used by Alexander did include Makednoi and thus both words were identical.

The only reason why I didn't "answer" it was because I obviously didn't understand the question. I did respond but in a different way. Since I have now answered the question, your conclusion is no longer warranted. Since the words are used for different subjects they are not identical.

Alexander said that he was Greek just like any Macedonian, being proud Greek, could say. For what he did and said, he called as Philhellene by Alexandrian writers as honor.

If this is so, then why do we not read of other proud Greeks such as Spartans or Athenians, individuals, saying "I am a Greek, a Spartan", or "I am a Greek, an Athenian". This kind of phrasing does not make sense when addressing others.

Thucydides here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Thuc.+2.99 says that Macedonians expelled Vottiaians, Pieriams, Peonians�. and other tribes around old

Macedonia

before meeting Greeks. This means that those tribes were placed between Greek settlers and Macedonians.

The Macedonians eventually conquered the Greeks, so this is not significant. At certain times in their history before Philip, they even took over Greek colonies in their midst such as Pydna and Methone. What's the point?

Are you arguing about hellanodikai�s role?

What I'm argueing are the specifics of their role.

Do you deny that there was a commission in the games to test whether some athletes were Greek?

Nope, that's not it.

If not, do you deny that this commission was the hellanodikai?

Nope, that's not it either.

If your answer is yes to any of those questions then you don�t deserve my time. Here you may read about �agonothetai�: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellanodikai

Like I said, I found nothing to show that "agonothetai" was the original title. What I found only makes it just a synonym. The article does not even quote sources, so it is not of much value. Please do your own research to prove your points.

When I said �illiterate� about Greeks I meant that they did know to read and write but the majority had no knowledge but about Homer�s words. Very few people knew about other Greek writers. There was no wide system of education but after Aeschylus and Herodotus times.

This still does not explain about the wide renown of Hesiod.

Plutarch DID separate Macedonian dialect from Egyptian and other languages for he didn�t site Macedonian amongst other languages but he wrote �makedonizein� = Macedonian kind of speech in an accented contradiction: �some of them did those things and in addition they stopped macedonizing�.

Plutarch is definitely making a list of languages, not "kinds of speech."

According to the Liddel and Scott, Greek/English Lexicon, page 1074 (I cannot seem to get access to the online Tufts version :( )

the term "Makedonizo" means "speak Macedonian", without any other qualifiers. Hence, there isn't anything special in the text, to distinguish it from any other language named in the text.

And, in an attempt to get you better would you make your position about older Macedonians� ethnicity clearer, please? I mean:

Do you accept that a Greek tribe settled Macedonia?

What I accept is that members of various Greek tribes settled in Macedonia. Thucydides makes it clear that "Greeks inhabited the land [of Macedonia]".

Do you accept that that tribe was self-called Macedonian?

After my first response, this question makes no sense. However, drawing back a moment, I must answer that: no the Macedonians were not a Greek tribe. The only thing that I can accept is that this non-Greek tribe was self-called Macedonian.

What do you thing about their number?

Not a large population.

How many were they?

Unknown, however if the military Perdiccas had fielded against his enemies is any indication, it was a small population, indeed.

Do you accept that that tribe hellenized progressively some peoples around?

The tribe had to be Hellenized before it could have Hellenized some other peoples around. The work of Hellenization was in part due to a Greek presence, already in evidence since the 8th century BC (i.e. coastal and interior Greek colonists)

[quote]Do you accept that that tribe incorporated some other Greek tribes living around (Vottiaians, Orestes, Lyngestes, �)?

Those tribes were not even considered Greek, so the question makes no sense to me. On the other hand, because there were Greeks present in these areas, these barbarian tribes were eventually Hellenized.

akritas

Chieftain

Hegemom

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Greek Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460

Quote

Posted: 26-Oct-2006 at 10:28

Originally posted by Sharrukin

The present consensus is that Macedonia was not Mycenaean. While it is true that Mycenaean artefacts have been found there, the literature generally describes it as either being "imports" or "imitation". Taking all of the artefacts into consideration we have instead a Macedonia which borrowed from all the surrounding cultures. The following quotes will suffice:

"Neither Macedonia or Epirus in the west were ever part of the Mycenaean Greece".

K.A. Wardle "Mycenaean Trade and Influence in Northern Greece," Wace and Blegen, Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age: 1939-1989, Zerner, Zerner, and Winder, editors, page 117.

".....Macedonia was never part of the Mycenaean koine. Indeed, one has to admit that, despite evidence of contact and exchange with neighboring areas to the north and south. Macedonia, in the Bronze Age, has a character and identity of its own."

A. Cambitoglu and J.K. Papadopolous, "The Earliest Mycenaeans in Macedonia", (same volume), page 289.

Our knowledge on the settlements of the Mycenaean period come mainly from the excavation research of Mycenaean sites and the surface surveys, which provide a picture of the area and density of Mycenaean settlement. The cemeteries -even those which may not be close to a settlement- indicate the existence of a nearby settlement.And as you know Pella and Vergina are flourish of them.Hammond and Andronicus explained a lot as about this.During the Dark Age(1200-800 B.C.) a demographic shrinkage takes place. Most information originates from archaeological sources, especially cemeteries, since settlements are almost non-existent and traces of life are scarce in most sites. The cemeteries have traces of Mucenaean and Lausitz (Brygian) civilizations.

Edited by akritas - 26-Oct-2006 at 10:39

Brainstorm View Drop Down

Baron

Joined: 21-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 407

Quote

Posted: 26-Oct-2006 at 11:46

I just hope i m not totally out of the conv, -i didnt read aaaall the previous posts but i have read smth about Mycenean and Macedonia...

I hope nobody misses when Macedonian Kingdom was founded.

Brown:Upper Macedonia (tribes living before 700-650,small kingdoms established)

Red:Kingdom of Macedonia in 650-490 BC.

Orange:expansion during Alexander I (479-450 BC)

Its obvious that Mycenean period (1100 Bc and back lies so back in time..

Despite this ,i have recently read that Mycenean artifacts were found in the graves of Aiani cemetery,in ancient Elimia (the southest of the brown part of the map)

akritas

Chieftain

Hegemom

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Greek Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460

Quote

Posted: 26-Oct-2006 at 11:54

Brainstorm can you resize your map? Unfortunely I have only maps with Greek text that not help to see the geogrphical borders according the historical route of the ancient Macedonian history.

You are right as about the cemeteries. This is the key of the issue!!!

Below is a map (Philip II borders) according Hammond that I found in google books

Edited by akritas - 26-Oct-2006 at 11:59

Flipper

Arch Duke

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813

Quote

Posted: 26-Oct-2006 at 12:36

Originally posted by Brainstorm

I just hope i m not totally out of the conv, -i didnt read aaaall the previous posts but i have read smth about Mycenean and Macedonia...

I hope nobody misses when Macedonian Kingdom was founded.

Bravo guys! You saved me from a lot of work with these!

Just to mention something...The existence of Phrygians in the region was only know by Herodotus who explains that they left the area around the 12th century. Afterwards we found proof in upper Macedonia, in the current area of Serres. That means not in Emathia and Pieria, the original place of the Macedons!!! Now how did we know they were Phrygian artifacts? Well, 1) they were not Mychenean and 2) one script was found in Linnear B which is however in the Phrygian language, not Greek.

Since the Greeks knew about the Phrygians (no other Thracian traces of other nations are found in that area) why don't we know anything else about those Thracians some mentioned before in the thread?

Macedonians did not grow from Emathia, they migrated there. The man who gave them the name was Macedon, son of Aeolus, who was a tribal leader not a King like the Argeads. A tribal leader leads his tribe not a another nation. Tribal leaders appear in historical migrations as the chosen ones to lead their people (e.g Graekus, Aetolos etc) who are afterwards named by them.

Now, please, I like argumentation a lot but after all these I need a conclution on it in the end. Not constant denial without a suggestion or just theories without empirical evidence.

Edited by Flipper - 26-Oct-2006 at 12:47

Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!

Menumorut

Chieftain

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423

Quote

Posted: 26-Oct-2006 at 13:53

Now, please, I like argumentation a lot but after all these I need a conclution on it in the end. Not constant denial without a suggestion or just theories without empirical evidence.

You don't understand that historical problems are not in white and black, Greek and no-Greek.

You are preoccupied to see if Macedonians were Greeks or not and you became happy finding that they were writting in Greek, that there were Mychenean archaeological sites and no trace of Thracians.

This is a hushing up, a trying of convincing, not the real search for the historical truth.

It's not an action at law between the adepts of Macedonian greekness and their oponents but the effort to clarify things.

So, trying to answer which was the population of Macedonia in diverse epochs and which was their culture, I cann't say like you that "they are Greeks, everything prove this".

I think this: they were a non-Greek population which due to the vicinity of the Greeks adopted their language and culture.

If they would be Greeks from the Mychenean times, they naturaly would have connection with the Greeks in other areas and developed a resembling culture and conscience of self identity. But they appear in history not as Greeks but as Macedoneans.

Flipper

Arch Duke

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813

Quote

Posted: 26-Oct-2006 at 14:29

Originally posted by Menumorut

[quote]
So, trying to answer which was the population of Macedonia in diverse epochs [1]and which was their culture, I cann't say like you that "they are Greeks, everything prove this".

I think this: they were a non-Greek population which due to the vicinity of the Greeks adopted their language and culture. [2]

If they would be Greeks from the Mychenean times, they naturaly would have connection with the Greeks in other areas and developed a resembling culture and conscience of self identity. But they appear in history not as Greeks but as Macedoneans. [3]

[1] The population in diverse epochs is not necessary the same. I quoted Strabo where he describes exactly the people who lived in Emathia before Caranus came. As I mentioned before they did not grow from the grounds of Emathia. The question is who they were in this thread not who inhabited the land before them. Remember again...Their tribal leader was son of Aeolus and grandchild of Hellen. It is not a coincidence that both Doric and Aeolic dialects are very close.......Ofcourse I don't expect or demand from you to see the obvious similarities in two dialects you do not comprehend and then fetch them on other data.

[2] I respect your opinion but please define them somehow then. And if you do that give us some food. :)

[3] This one was a miss..They had many connections...Culturarly, they have many things in common with other Dorian-founded-states. They appear as a tribe and Kindom as Macedonians like the rest of the Greeks did not appear seperately as Greeks when they were refered specifically. Athenians as Athenians, Spartans as Spartans, Korinthians as Korinthians, Cretans as Cretans etc. And yes they had close relations with Athens (before Philip, we have a lot of data on that) and ofcourse don't forget the Molossians, the Thessalians and the Magnites(who were probably their closest tribe, descending from Magnes)... Now take a look at this...It is from the 5th century and it is an Athenian honour to King Archelaos. Those were common actions (and proof of good relations) from the Athenians before Philip II and Demosthenes.

Athenian honours for the Macedonian king Archelaos, Center of Studies of ancient documents, Oxford

Edited by Flipper - 26-Oct-2006 at 14:34

Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!

Flipper

Arch Duke

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813

Quote

Posted: 26-Oct-2006 at 15:06

Originally posted by Menumorut

[quote]
You are preoccupied to see if Macedonians were Greeks or not and you became happy finding that they were writting in Greek, that there were Mychenean archaeological sites and no trace of Thracians.

This is a hushing up, a trying of convincing, not the real search for the historical truth.

I've actually searched a lot on the possibility that they were Phrygians. It has always been the strongest alternative theory before but it seems that historians nowadays forget that. And I do not generalize them as Thracians cause Phrygians even though they're a part of Thracian history, they are not the same with the Paionians, the Ionians of the coast or the Dacians of northern Thrace.

Anyway, the Greeks had a very good knowledge of the Phrygian tribes...

Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!

Flipper

Arch Duke

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813

Quote

Posted: 26-Oct-2006 at 16:23

Now lets see which tribes around the Macedonians are currently regarded as Thracian from the 7th century and after...

Sources from: Babelon, Trait� des monnaies

Orresci: A tribe possibly connected to the Besi people (Pangean district)

Edoni: This Thracian tribe occupied in historical times the parts about the lower Strymon.

Getas: Possibly the same people like Edoni but with different administration.

Now lets check the mixed tribes...

Tynteni: Whether there was a city called Tynte or whether the Tynteni were a Thraco-Macedonian tribe occupying scattered villages is uncertain.

Derones: It is uncertain if those were Euboans mixed with Paionians or Euboans that adapted certain Paionian cultural characteristics. They use Euboic standards of writing but in some cases seem to worship a Paionian god. Their dekadrachm depicts a large shield with star on it (Side A) and a Corinthian helmet (Side B).

Now lets check the Cadmians

Bisaltae: This tribe occupied the tract of land west of the Strymon, including the metalliferous mountains which separate the valley of the Strymon from Mygdonia. Their coins follow the Phoenician standard.

And now various Greek tribes

Orthagores: The towns which studded the coasts of Chalcidice, with its three huge tongues of land extending far into the sea, were for the most part sprung from the two enterprising Euboean cities, Chalcis and Eretria. From Euboea these colonies derived the Eubo�c silver standard, which took firm root in those northern regions, and continued in general use until the latter part of the fifth century, when, as will presently be seen, it was in nearly all of them superseded by the Phoenician or Macedonian standard.

Acanthians and their town Acantus was a very old colony from Andros, situated on the isthmus which connects the peninsula of Acte with the mainland of Chalcidice. It began to coin silver in large quantities about B.C. 500 or earlier. Until the time of the expedition of Brasidas, B.C. 424, the Eubo�c standard was used.

Let see now regional data...

Source from: Imhoof-Blummer , Monnaies grecques, pp. 38-131. Paris and Leipzig, 1883.

Therma (Gk. warm), later Thessaloniki. The central position of this town (the modern Salonica), at the head of the Thermaic gulf, threw it of necessity into communication both by sea and land with various cities and tribes using money struck on various standards Eubo�c and Phoenician. No early coins are, however, known which can be with certainty attributed to it, although it is possible that many uninscribed Macedonian coins, which have been found at Salonica, may have been struck there. The only coins which have been, with some probability, assigned to Therma are those with a Pegasos on the obverse, a type which seems especially applicable to Therma, supposing it to have been a colony of Corinth.

Mende was an ancient colony of Eretria(Euboic city), situate on the south-west.

Potidaea, a colony of Corinth on the Thermaic gulf.

Now, why am I posting this?

1) First I should mention that Imhoof-Bloomer and Babelon examined artifacts and try to find similarities that connect them to artifacts of tribes in other areas.

2) It gives a nice geographic picture of the people near Emathia and Pieria, before becoming a part/or neighbours of the Macedonian Kindom.

3) I find interesting the fact that there are colonies founded by people of Dorian descend or show artifactual similarities with other Dorian findings around Greece.

4) This is data from another perspective. Names, cities and tribes not mentioned often in other cases.

NOTE 1: On account of the Greek cities I have even more but in order to not get tiresome and the fact I'm out of time, I post just few examples.

NOTE 2: This material is not supposed to proove anything about who the Macedonians were but it is just helpfull material for anyone trying to find connections. Another way of research if you like, that can be taken to account in certain situations.

Edited by Flipper - 26-Oct-2006 at 16:32

Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!

akritas

http://alexander.macedonia.culture.gr/2/21/211/21116/21116ek/e211pe02.html

Chieftain

Hegemom

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Greek Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460

Quote

Posted: 26-Oct-2006 at 16:58

Flipper dont forget that we speak for the geometric period.A period that we had the arrival and settlement of new inhabitants caused the migration of many among the older populations to other areas.The composition of different tribal groups altered during migrations and re-settlements. However despite their break up they had preserved elements from their initial organizational type, as becomes manifest by the fact that certain names of Ionian tribes existed on both shores of the Aegean, whereas in Dorian communities there was similarly the division into three tribes - the Hylleis, the Dymanes and the Pamphyloi. Some changes observed, as for example new styles in pottery or the use of iron, are probably related to the settlement of new population groups, especially in the transition period between the Submycenaean and the Protogeometric period. However, the material remains are not sufficient to find out whether these movements took place during that specific period. In the opposite case, innovations in pottery can be probably interpreted in the context of the new experimentation of potters.And in that time 8th-7th the Brygians migrated from Emathia in Minor Asia. And I speak for Emathia because this the core of the initial started of the Macedonian history.

well we must summirized as about the arguments.I mean in those that beleive in the Settlement..

Cemeteries.We have the abatement of the Brygian (Phrygian as you said) archaelogical findings until theirs disappeared in 7th century.The muceneans findings are the same.
The Lausitz ceramica evidence.
The ancient writings (Caranus or Perdikas) that spoke for migration and conquered the Emathia.Of course we have and the testimony of the poets that speak for the genealogical tree of the Greek tribes as you explain with your given quote.(two testimonies).
The initial arcaheological findings of the Colonies. Like your Corinthian artifact piece.Strabo was clear for that.(book 7)
The gradual restoration of contacts between these areas, after their weakening during the Submycenaean period, is one of the basic elements of development in Greece during the Dark Age and Geometric period.As I said Greeks meet Greeks.The growth of trade created opportunities for contact with other peoples, facilitated cultural interaction and contributed to the Renaissance inaugurated from the 2nd quarter of the 8th cent B.C..

Finally I want to add that the settlements of the Dark Age and Geometric period can be distinguished into two classes: permanent and temporary.Will be following another analysies but I want first to hear the opposite opinion, these that still claim that the Macedonians were not Greek tribe.Just to mention ......we speak for the Macedonians and not for the Macedonian State or Kingdom

Edited by akritas - 26-Oct-2006 at 17:02

Sharrukin

Chieftain

Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314

Quote

Posted: 27-Oct-2006 at 02:12

Flipper

Originally posted by Sharrukin

Why do I always have to remind people that the term barbarian has a basic meaning of "uncivilized" used for both foreigners and Hellenes that were culturarly undeveloped?

Well, here's the problem. From the very first time it is recorded in ancient Greek literature it is used to designate a non-Greek. Herodotus begins his work (1.1.1) already using the term with the sense of non-Greek. In the majority of its usage it meant non-Greek.

Really? When he speaks about the Pelasgic language he speaks about a Barbaric language. Then he says that the Greeks never changed their speech and that it was a branch of Pelasgic. He says that the Athenians, the "true Hellenes" were of Pelasgic origin? Just an example of how you can present swifted meanings when you do not include the whole story.

The text of Herodotus reads as follows:

"But the Hellenic stock, it seems clear to me, has always had the same language since its beginning; yet being, when separated from the Pelasgians,..." (1.58.1)

The meaning is quite obvious. From the beginning of the Greeks branching off from the Pelasgians, their language was Greek. Hence, it was "always the same language". Why make it more complicated than what it is. From Herodotus�s point of view the Greek language had its beginning from a barbarian language.

Originally posted by Sharrukin

The word for foreigner in Greek is litterarly "xenos" or "Mi Ellin" or "allodapos". A person who can not behave, is culturarly undeveloped, cannot speak formal or commit attrocities is a "barbaros". Then based upon the majority of times it is used, all non-Greeks could not behave and committed attrocities. Does this make sense to you?

Or were uncivilized compared to others...So yes, it makes sence if you do not remove the word "uncivilized" as I originally wrote.

The majority of scholarship in the meaning of the word "barbarian" agrees that its use in the pejorative sense was of later development. There is far too much written by the Greeks to show that when writing about the "barbarians" they did not see them as uncivilized, but rather saw them as admirable to such an extent that the "barbarians" were imitated. This can be seen in Classical Greek art where the Geometric tradition gave way to the "Orientalizing" tradition, meaning that the Greeks derived much of their artistic inspiration from the East. The consensus of scholarship of the word "barbaros"with very little variation concludes that it referred to linguistic differences between Greek and other languages. A "barbaros" was a "barbaros" because his native tongue was not Greek, hence he was a non-Greek.

Originally posted by Sharrukin

The Hellenes said "Pas min Ellin Barbaros".

This means "Foreigners are Barbarians" and not "foreigners are foreigners". It doesn't mean eather "Barbarians are foreigners".

How about "foreigners are non-Greeks"?

In Greek that would be "Pas xenos mi Ellin".

Mi Ellin does litterarly mean "non-Greek" even in a free translation. Now tell me what if such a quote like yours does sense.

What does more sense to you as a saying?

"Foreigners are culturarly undeveloped/uncivilized"

Or

"Foreigners are non-Greeks"

The second is a useless statement...

Okay, let me backtrack a little. I already have adequate resources to show how "barbaros" was used in ancient times. I�ve mentioned some facts relating to this subject in other responses in this thread. Hence, its meaning as I�ve come to understand it is robust. Now, I�ve tried to find this phrase "mi ellin" in classical sources with no such luck. Can you please give me some references for its use, for examination? Thanks.

Originally posted by Sharrukin
Besides, who said the Macedonians were the only ones to be called "Barbarians"? Other Greek tribes had to live with that characterization for centuries. So, what about the Thebans? What about the Aetolians? They were called barbarians but they were still Hellenes.

This only obscures the issue. Sometimes the word is used for Greeks, but this is obviously an exception to the rule. Since the word had already been used to mean "non-Greek", the sense of its use for Greeks (either collectively or toward an individual) is in the sense of them acting like "non-Greeks". As we know from the majority of other evidence the groups so-named were considered Greeks.

So, why isn't it an exception of the rule about the Macedonians?

Whereas, we have a wide volume of source material showing that all peoples to the south of Macedonia are given the appellation "in Hellas", "Hellenes", and "Hellenic", none exist for the Macedonians in the archaic or early classical periods. Instead we have statements from Hesiod, Herodotus, and Thucydides marking them as separate from Hellenes. The Macedonians did not participate in any pan-Hellenic organization or alliance until a Macedonian king (and only a Macedonian king) participated in the Olympics in the earlier 5^th century BC. Based upon the apparent unconcern of the Macedonians to Greek affairs, as a whole, those who have noted the situation, see the Macedonians not identifying themselves as Greeks. Until the 4^th century BC, the only Macedonians who seemed concerned about Greek affairs were their kings.

Originally posted by Sharrukin

On the other hand there is evidence from Thucydides that the Spartans and Athenians regarded each other as Greeks (4.20.4). Again, since there is other ample evidence to show that both were regarded as Greek, the term "barbarian" must be seen in the light of political infighting, as a term of insult, marking off their enemies as "lower" than they.

Bravo! Great! For the same reason Demosthenes and others lowered Philip and his people. In the same way we have comments that regards them as Greek rather than "other people".

Just a moment. Demosthenes wasn�t the first to name a Macedonian king a "barbarian". Thrasymachus called the earlier Macedonian king Archelaus a "barbarian" as well. Apparently there was disagreement amongst Greeks as to the ethnicity of the Macedonian kings, despite their public declaration that they were Greeks. Earlier than Thrasymachus, Herodotus had to take great pains to "prove" that the Macedonian kings were Greek, since he knew that his readers were skeptics, having to remind them that the hellenodikai judged a Macedonian king as a Greek. So, there was much more than just political infighting since, until the time of Philip, the Macedonians were not seen as a threat to Greek political aspirations.

Originally posted by Sharrukin

As for the Jewish historian...The Jews refer to the Macedonians as Jawan like they did with other Greeks (more to come on this)...

Like the comments I've spoken about the Indian usage of the term Yavana, the Macedonians were seen in the Hellenistic period as having been Hellenized enough, especially with their adoption of koine Greek, to be seen by outsiders as Greek.

Good. Now tell me a good reason why the Macedonians would spead Hellenistic culture and not their own. Why would they care to adopt a "foreign language" and develop it? Besides, doesn't culture and speech define the Hellenes (Isokrates)?

You will pardon me when I say that I�ve already discussed this with much detail in earlier posts, so I must refer you to reading them. It is only sufficient for me to state that Macedonian spread of an alien culture can be compared with the Persian spread of an alien culture not its own, either. They did not spread their language, but rather Aramaic throughout its empire.

Remember that before that before the Hellenistic years and the years when Koine was the common language of the Greeks, the Persians called the Macedonians Yaunas. This was during the war between Greeks and Persians. Doesn't that mean that their pre-Koine language (Makedonisti) was considered Greek to the Persians?

No. For starters there are too many objections to the idea that Yauna (or rather Yauna Takabara) meant Macedonians. Again, I�ve already given this due coverage in earlier postings, so I refer you to those.

Originally posted by Sharrukin

The distinction between Macednos and Macedonian is tragic...

Velleius Paterculus on his Book I, based on Herodotus makes no distinction between Macednos and Macedon.

There are many translations which make that mistake. According to Liddel and Scott - Greek/English Lexicon, Makednon was the "pr.n. [proper name] of the Dorians". Nothing is said of the term meaning "Macedonian".

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?layout.refembed=2&layout.refdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0125&layout.refcit=book%3D1%3Achapter%3D56%3Asection%3D3&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2364596&layout.reflookup=%2Amakedno%2Fn&layout.reflang=greek&layout.refwordcount=1&layout.refabo=Perseus%3Aabo%3Atlg%2C0016%2C001

George Rawlingson, write "Macedonians" and I believe he is a more cretitable historian isn't he? I think this distinction is made for retoric purposes and not as an actual difference between "Makednos" and "Makedonas". Is there anyone saying clearly "Makedonian is not the same as Makednos"?

Why would the lexicographers create a separate entry just for rhetorical purposes? This goes against the spirit of the Lexicon in the first place. Rawlinson is only just one translator, compared to a great body of work created by many experts in the ancient language. It is therefore only logical for me to accept the expertise of a consensus of experts ("at least 100 scholars" according to the preface), against the understanding of just one individual.

Originally posted by Sharrukin

From etymonline.com (Online etymology dictionary, sub project of Oxford university)

Macedonia: from L. Macedonius "Macedonian," from Gk. Makedones, lit. "highlanders" or "the tall ones," related to makednos "long, tall," makros "long, large."

We've already covered this in other parts of the thread. What is missing in your definition is the term "Makednon". Nothing is said of it.

Makednon is a declination of Makednos. If you were going to call someone directly "Makednos" would become "Makedne" which is a Dotic declination in Greek.

Also, depending on the dialect of Greek being used, words are cut in various ways like this of Makednon and Makedon.

E.g: "Gar" can be "ga" in Doric forms, "mitir" becomes "matir" in Doric, "Misa" becomes "Imsa" in Pontian.

Now, since you don't comprehend the language and its dialects I don't understand what you're trying to proove with this? All your quotes on the specific matter are done because of the lack of grammar. It is telling me that the english "It" is different from the possesive "Its" and therefore "Its" does not derive from It.

I don�t debate that they are related terms, especially in their etymology. What I do dispute is their usage. Makednon is only used in relation to Dorians. It is never mixed with terms referring to Macedonians. Context is just as much a factor in understanding what is being said as grammer.

originally posted by Sharrukin
No one is disputing the etymology of the names of the kings of Macedonia.

Good, then I'm leaving this behind...Sorry.

Originally posted by Sharrukin

Emperor Julian (Praise for Eusebia, p147)

"That much I can say, without endless talking and without becoming tiresome, that she [Eusebia] is of a family line that is pure Hellenic, from the purest of Hellenes, and her city is the metropolis of Macedonia."

Compare this to wishfull thoughts making them non-Greek. And like someone in this forum said "define a Hellen" before talking about who's Greek and who's not. Hellenism and Jewism are ethnic terms completely different from anything else we know about ethnicities.

Julian is far too late to be used as an authority on ethnicity. Macedonia during his period of reign included many Greek-speaking areas anyway, such as Chalcidice and Thessaly, so what did he mean by "city"? Thessalonica, perhaps? We already know that there was a Greek presence in the region, from a time even before the Macedonians took over the region.

1) Thessaly is in Thessaly not Macedonia.

Thessaly in the period of Julian was part of Macedonia.

2) Yes, Thessaloniki...That was built way after the Macedonians took over the region.

Right, but the region already had a Greek presence.

3) If Julian is too late then Hesiod (Catalogues of Women, fr.3) does the job:

"And she (Thyia, sister of Hellen) conceived and bare to Zeus who delights in the thunderolt two sons, Magnes and Macedon, rejoicing in horses, who dwell round about Pieria and Olympos."

I guess you have missed the fact that Macedon was the tribal leader of the Macedonians, the one who gave them their name.

And as we can see, Macedon was not of the line of Hellen, but of a parallel line. He was "cousin" to the Greeks, but he himself was not a Greek. What�s even worse, he is not even of the line of Dorus, as some try to vainly get out of Herodotus, or even Aeolus, as Hellanicus, the contemporary of Herodotus, thought. It is then academic from here. According to Hesiod, the Greeks comprised the Dorians, Ionians, Aeolians, and Achaeans. Macedon does not fit into any of these categories and so is listed outside the Greek nation.

I can post pages with quotes that do not distinct geographically Macedonians and the rest but that include them or call them Hellenes. However, this wouldn't be a thread-friendly post.

Now, one question...I said that I reffer I Macedonians the settlers of Emathia and Pieria. Which do you reffer to as Macedonians?

Part of Pieria, which they shared with the Pieres, perhaps the southern parts of Emathia, and the valley to the west of the Bermion range (Eordia, Lyncus),

If the surrounding areas had Greek presence why are you so sure they were different?

I�ve already answered this question above.

I see the settlers of Mychenaean times as Achaean or Aeolian settlers.

Yet the consensus is that Macedonia was not part of the Mycenaean world.

What happened later is another story. You have a vast number of Cretans, Chalkideans and Cadmians in the area. You also have Phrygian leftovers from their first Kindom and ofcourse some Illyrian settlements. I can accept that the Phrygians and Illyrians were assimilated but did that make them non-Greek?

If there is no evidence that Macedonia was part of the Mycenaean Culture, the Greek factor in their core ethnogenesis is nullified. The ethnogenesis of the Macedonians then probably comprised elements from all over that part of the Balkans.

[quote]Even if they became neutralized, the comming of the Heraklidae should polarize them as Greeks again.

If you are referring to the "Caranus tradition" that was a later tradition. The earlier Perdiccas tradition only has the adventures of the three brothers, who, somehow were able to impose their rule over the local Pierian Macedonians. These Pierian Macedonians were in contact with the Greek colonies of Methone and Pydna (established since the 8^th century BC,, hence they gained their first taste of Hellenism from this quarter. Then Perdiccas appeared by the mid. 7^th century BC. It became inevitable that the Macedonians, finding Greeks within their own land, would Hellenize, since the archaeology does show that the culture of the Macedonians was drawn from many quarters and not just Greek. The Greek element being the strongest (and the most sought after by other Balkan peoples) inevitably would prevail, but it took centuries.

Sharrukin

Chieftain

Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314

Quote

Posted: 27-Oct-2006 at 02:49

Flipper

For those who wonder about the early inscriptions in Macedonia I got something to present. Remember we have been speaking about the Dorians...The Corinthians were Dorians as well. I also mentioned in earlier posts that the first man to be called Alexander was the 10th King of Corinth back in the 9th century BC. Now take a look on this...

This is one of the earliest inscriptions we have in Macedonia. It is written in the Corynthian alphabet around the late 7th or early 6th century BC.

..ροθεμις μα.. (Latin: ..rothemis ma..) is what is left of it.

Is it still a coincidence?

Sorry dude, but this inscription was found in Sani in Chalcidice, dating from the late 6th century BC. As you know, Chalcidice was not conquered by the Macedonians until the 340's BC.

Menumorut

Chieftain

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423

Quote

Posted: 27-Oct-2006 at 03:03

I respect your opinion but please define them somehow then. And if you do that give us some food.

They were the result of mixage between Thracians, Illyrians and Phrygians which adopted the Greek language early (Geometric period). Theoreticaly, it would be possible to be the descendants of a Greek tribe or of a mixage of Greeks with other people but in such case the conscience of their Greek identity should have been preserved, like at all surrounding Greeks: Ionians, Thessalians.

They appear as a tribe and Kindom as Macedonians like the rest of the Greeks did not appear seperately as Greeks when they were refered specifically. Athenians as Athenians, Spartans as Spartans, Korinthians as Korinthians, Cretans as Cretans etc.

The ones mentioned appear as Greeks in sources, they all were considered firstly Greeks and then Athenians etc. This is not appliable with Macedonians.

Athenian honours for the Macedonian king Archelaos, Center of Studies of ancient documents, Oxford[/quot]

Ratherly, such things are proof of the conscience of the non-Greek apartnence of Greeks about Macedonians. How could a Greek city, even Athens, to give honours to another Greek king?

[quote]I've actually searched a lot on the possibility that they were Phrygians. It has always been the strongest alternative theory before but it seems that historians nowadays forget that. And I do not generalize them as Thracians cause Phrygians even though they're a part of Thracian history, they are not the same with the Paionians, the Ionians of the coast or the Dacians of northern Thrace.

This is a proof of the black-or-white way of thinking. Try to understand that a people speaking Greek could be the result of Hellenization.

akritas

http://alexander.macedonia.culture.gr/2/21/211/21116/21116ek/e211pe02.html

Chieftain

Hegemom

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Greek Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460

Quote

Posted: 27-Oct-2006 at 03:39

Originally posted by Sharrukin

Flipper

Is it still a coincidence?

Sorry dude, but this inscription was found in Sani in Chalcidice, dating from the late 6th century BC. As you know, Chalcidice was not conquered by the Macedonians until the 340's BC.

This confirm the migration theory in the geometric period.As I said one from the facts are the initial arcaheological findings of the Colonies. Like this Corinthian artifact piece.Strabo was clear for that.(book 7).Flipper tried to show you how close were the Greek tribes (Dorians,Ionians, Aeolians) and not to tell you that the Macedonians were Corinthians. I dont know any Brygian or Illyrian king that adopted Greek names.

Originally posted by Menumorut

They were the result of mixage between Thracians, Illyrians and Phrygians which adopted the Greek language early (Geometric period). Theoreticaly, it would be possible to be the descendants of a Greek tribe or of a mixage of Greeks with other people but in such case the conscience of their Greek identity should have been preserved, like at all surrounding Greeks: Ionians, Thessalians.

We dont have any evidence for that.Contrariwisey the social life at that period was determined by the double axis of kinship and vicinity. Most families in villages must have been related whereas many of them would have kins in neighbouring settlements. So how a Brygian must be close with a Greek ? 100 or 200 years was not enouph time to Hellenized a diffrrent tribe and we talking for the Geometric period and only

Edited by akritas - 27-Oct-2006 at 04:15

Istor the Macedonian View Drop Down

Knight

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 68

Quote

Posted: 27-Oct-2006 at 09:58

@ themacedonian

Macedonians and southern Greeks had hard feelings towards each other because of and during the Macedonian power.

Anyway, Macedonians had always Greek names, toponyms, ways, heroes, gods, dialect and in their glory times, spread Greek Language and Civilization to the World. If ANY people around do the same things we Greeks will consider them as Greeks and we will allow them to rule over Greece.

Macedonians were called barbarians ONLY by southern Greek POLITICIANS and ONLY during conflict times.

Alexander the first did participate in the games, despite he was king of an unimportant and (possibly) unknown place. Aeschylus, who was in Marathon battle, didn�t know ANY Macedonia, as we can read in Thrachiniae.

Macedonians the �barbarian� had heard Ifigenia (Euripides� tragedy) in Pella to say �mother it�s natural for the Greeks to dominate over barbarians, it�s a shame the opposite�.

Philhellene: http://www.network54.com/Forum/415923/message/1118870604

@ menumorut

Greeks were around Pindus since 3000 BC.

If Turkey attempts to get named Byzantine Empire the controversy about Empire�s Greekness will be really enormous. And, that Empire�s shining is not as big as Macedonia�s. Macedonians were called not Greeks ONLY by POLITICIANS and ONLY during conflict times.

hellenization process was even over Greeks because we Greeks are not timeless people. Some time in the past, a non Greek tribe, started self-hellenization and after 3000 BC we have clear evidences of their presence as Greeks.

@ Anton

Strabo used the term Greek as geographic when talking about Thessalians. Yet he wrote �Macedonia is naturally Greece�. Apparently because Macedonians were (always) Greeks.

We cannot call SlavoSkopians as Macedonian because the last 3000 years we have this term for a Greek tribe that glorified Greece and Greeks. In fact ALL Wolrd AND SlavoSkopians MUST respect this name of ours. What SlavoSkopians do is a brutal and shameful violation of our self-determination right.

Would you accept without anger, any modern non-Greek people to get named Dorian?

Istor
Macedonian, therefore Greek!

Istor the Macedonian View Drop Down

Knight

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 68

Quote

Posted: 27-Oct-2006 at 10:00

We have agreed that there were many barbarians who had attempted to participate in the Games and thus many of them were aborted. So, what Alexander�s competitors did wasn�t that unusual. In any case, Herodotus wrote that passage to assure Alexander�s Greekness.

{ Okay, I can only agree that "Makedonon huparchos" should be translated, as "Macedonian ruler (or viceroy)". }

Oh God !! Is that what I wrote? �makedonon huparchos� shall be translated as �ruler of Macedonians�, not as �Macedonian ruler� !!! Is it now clear?? And then, the question is �was he ruler of Makednoi??� Yes! Did he include them in the term �Macedonians� he used above? You answered with a very lonely, weak, fragile, sort, fake NO! Come on Sir! Be brave!!! Respect your ignorance about Greek Language and lack of arguments, please!

In the ling to LSJ about makednos you sited, there is �makednos = meekedanos�. Given that Dorians said an �a� when Attics said �ee� (eta) meekedanos = makedanos. In this passage: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Hdt.+6.44.1 Herodotus does include Makednoi in Macedonians. As my friend Flipper wrote �this differentiation is tragic�. Now it seems to me comic.

"I am a Greek, a Spartan", I �ll make my search. Stay tuned.

I say that Macedonians didn�t massively meet other Greeks but a while before Alexander�s (1st) times. So, one small Greek tribe, the Macedonians=Makednoi, hellenized step by step all peoples around.

agono8etai: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Hdt.+6.127.1

Read again Plutarch�s passage. He clearly distinguishes Macedonian from other languages because Macedonian was a Greek dialect. He set �makedonizein� word separated from the other languages. Anyway to use Plutarch�s words in order to argue about Macedonians� Greekness is tragi-comic again.

So, you claim that the word �Macedonia� is not Greek, right? Because, a non-Greek people could not be self-named after a Greek name, right?

You say that Perdikkas (alone or) with let�s say 100 Greeks from Argos, settled Macedonia, called themselves as Makednoi and progressively Hellenized all (or many) Macedonians? The region they settled was already called as Macedonia and its people as Macedonian?

It is very clear that this thread started wrongly. My friend Akritas was hurried; he should wait for you to start it. (Sorry Akrita). But it is not late. Would you please start a new thread with all those claims of yours about Macedonians being not Greeks from the very beginning and being not Makednoi?

Vottiaians, Orestes, �. were hellenized before getting named as such or after?

Edited by Istor the Macedonian - 27-Oct-2006 at 10:02

Istor
Macedonian, therefore Greek!

Menumorut

Chieftain

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423

Quote

Posted: 27-Oct-2006 at 11:03

Athenian honours for the Macedonian king Archelaos, Center of Studies of ancient documents, Oxford

I have answered this but probably I deleted accidentaly the paragraph. Such dedication is ratherly a proof of the non-Greek character of Macedonians, because a Greek city doesn't give honours to a Greek king in another kingdom.

I dont know any Brygian or Illyrian king that adopted Greek names.

I think we must exclude the use of concepts like Illyrian, Greek etc. reffering to populations, because is deruting. Better is to speak about the origin of that populations.
The Illyrian or Brygian kings didn't adopted Greek names because they were not in the same situation as Macedonians.

We dont have any evidence for that.

In the period coresponding to Greek Geometric period, Thracian material culture was not clearly definited and separated from the other curents in Balkans and Mediteranean basin.

Anyway, the aspects of Macedonian spirituality are closer to the Thracians than to the Greeks. The apreciation for the horses and gold, the "Barbarian" type of kingdom and society, the divinization of king speak about a strong Thracian influence or about a Thracian origin of the Macedonian spirituality.

Contrariwisey the social life at that period was determined by the double axis of kinship and vicinity. Most families in villages must have been related whereas many of them would have kins in neighbouring settlements.

Again, this is quite different from the true Greeks.

So how a Brygian must be close with a Greek ? 100 or 200 years was not enouph time to Hellenized a diffrrent tribe and we talking for the Geometric period and only

.

The language a population speak is not something unchangeable. In 100-200 years a population like that of Macedonians (not very big and restricted to a small territory) could have adopted the language of the Greeks and by that their original, Thracian identity vanished. In fact, I think it would be harder explicably if they would preserve thir Thracian language in the closeness of Greek territories.

Macedonians were called not Greeks ONLY by POLITICIANS and ONLY during conflict times.

I think that how Greeks called Macedonians was not a political maneuvre but an expression of the contemporary feeling of Greeks toward Macedonians. They were considering them non-Greeks and that due to the perpetuation of the conscience that Macedonians are not Greeks. I mean that at a moment Macedonians adopted Greek language and culture and they started to pretend they are Greeks but true Greeks had kept the memory about the non-greekness of Macedonians.

Ofcourse and this is appliable for most of the peoples. But we want clarify these origins (as much as we can) not to apreciate how much Greek or non-Greek a people or culture is.

Pilot

Immortal Guard

Joined: 14-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0

Quote

Posted: 27-Oct-2006 at 12:18

These Greeks are trying to "one tribe" the ancient [and modern] Macedonians with them.

Arrian clearly separates them by race.
Arrian separates Cretans from the Greeks too.

Alexander sacrificed to the Gods of his Macedonian Race. [not the gods of the Greek race] Wink

go to XVIII

http://websfor.org/alexander/arrian/indica1.asp

akritas