Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Who are the ancient Macedonians ?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 16>
Author
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Who are the ancient Macedonians ?
    Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 03:13
Originally posted by Sharrukin

  The Hellanodikai were, first of all, judges appointed to ensure the integrity of the games, (like ensuring that there is no cheating), not to check on an athletes' background. 
 
Hellanodikai had unlimited responsibilities that could be seperated in two parts, administrative and judicial. As Administrative tool, Hellanodikai had also first of all, the responsibility of applying the rules in reference to the athletes, among them to check if an athlete met all the necessary participation requirements like Alexander's Philhellene case. 
 
"Distinctively dressed in puprple robes and allowed the priviledge of elevated seating (while others sat on the ground or stood), the Hellanodikai admitted or excluded competitors, assigned them to Age-classes,..."
 
[Sport in the Ancient World from A to Z] by Mark Golden
 
"the people who shared in the Greek ethnic identity were the people who perceived themselves to be Greeks, and whose self-perception was shared by those who had the dominant role in 'controlling" the boundaries of Greekness, such as, in the fifth century, the Hellanodikai who controlled participation in the Olympic games"
 
[Herodotus and his world, Essays from a conference  in memory of George Forrest] By Robert Parker, Peter Derow
 
According to your references, they "admitted or excluded competitors" and "controlled participation".  Yet, in the case of Alexander, they did not do such until after the accusation of the athletes.  This leads me to believe that such a duty only really occurred if there was major doubt as to the Greekness of the athlete in question by others.  The implication is that they did not get involved in such a judgement initially because it was assumed that the state these free citizen athletes came from already vouched for their Greekness.  I need more.  Like I've told Istor, please find original materials to clarify how active their duties were in determining the qualifications of an individual athlete.  Thanks.
Back to Top
Perseas View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 14-Jan-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote Perseas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 05:41
Originally posted by Sharrukin

 
According to your references, they "admitted or excluded competitors" and "controlled participation".  Yet, in the case of Alexander, they did not do such until after the accusation of the athletes.  This leads me to believe that such a duty only really occurred if there was major doubt as to the Greekness of the athlete in question by others.  The implication is that they did not get involved in such a judgement initially because it was assumed that the state these free citizen athletes came from already vouched for their Greekness.  I need more.  Like I've told Istor, please find original materials to clarify how active their duties were in determining the qualifications of an individual athlete.  Thanks.
 
I dont think so. The second reference is clear that " those who had the dominant role in 'controlling" the boundaries of Greekness, such as, in the fifth century, the Hellanodikai who controlled participation in the Olympic games"
 
This leads to believe, in the case of Alexander, Hellanodikai didnt doubt his "greekness", otherwise they would first questioned it themselves and not after accusations of athletes. Its irrational to believe that Hellanodikai act to enforce olympic rules after and whether there were protests from athletes.
 
Your argument "The implication is that they did not get involved in such a judgement initially because it was assumed that the state these free citizen athletes came from already vouched for their Greekness" doesnt stand. Nothing is being assumed and they just simply let it go until someone points it out, in the strict ruling system of ancient olympics.
 


Edited by Perseas - 12-Oct-2006 at 05:45
A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 09:52

I was hoping to avoid responding until after I've responded to all posts, but far be it for me to oppose a fellow moderator.  :)

I dont think so. The second reference is clear that " those who had the dominant role in 'controlling" the boundaries of Greekness, such as, in the fifth century, the Hellanodikai who controlled participation in the Olympic games"
 
This leads to believe, in the case of Alexander, Hellanodikai didnt doubt his "greekness", otherwise they would first questioned it themselves and not after accusations of athletes. Its irrational to believe that Hellanodikai act to enforce olympic rules after and whether there were protests from athletes.
 
Your argument "The implication is that they did not get involved in such a judgement initially because it was assumed that the state these free citizen athletes came from already vouched for their Greekness" doesnt stand. Nothing is being assumed and they just simply let it go until someone points it out, in the strict ruling system of ancient olympics.
 
I would still disagree until I have more basic sources info.  Knowing the great religious significence of the games, it would have been front-page scandal for an athlete to be exposed as a barbarian.  I simply cannot believe that, because, as far as my own research is concerned, not one case of an athlete booted out because of alleged barbarian origin, has not come down to us.  So I again ask for more info.  What are the sources of the authors you quoted conclusions?  What ancient sources are they alluding to?
 
Again, I ask for courtesy sake to refrain from responding until I've responded to all who have posted.  There's just one more left, but I cannot deal with it right now because of work.  Thanks.
Back to Top
akritas View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Hegemom

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Greek Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
  Quote akritas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 12:13
Originally posted by Sharrukin

The title merely means "Greek judges". You cannot show purpose by simply giving its meaning. Please give ancient documentation for the role of the Hellenodikai. According to the article "hellenodikai" in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, it is defined as "the title of the chief judges at the Olympic Games, the Nemean Games, and the Asclepian Games at Epidaurus. The Olympic hellanodikai were appointed for a single festival from the leading families of Elis: they presided over the games, exercising disciplinary authority over the athletes, and over the banquet which ended the festival. The title was also used for a magistracy in Sparta (Xen. Lac. 13.11)." Nothing is specifically said about proving the Greekness of athletes.
 
So as I see you beleive and focus what your dictionary mention as about the meaning of the Hellenodikai. Let me point some thinks.The consequence  (indented or not) of both the aggregative enrolment of the ethnic neponyms with the Hellenic genealogy and the policy of the ethnic exclusion practiced by the Hellanodikai was that many groups that we would today consider Greeks(not from you) were  regarded as  Hellenic by their contempories.
 
The Aitolians were a good point.Dispute the inclusion of the Aitolian Males among Agaristes suitors there are no attested Olympic victors from Aitolia in the Archaic period and the fact that the eponymous Aitolos degree could only be traced back to Aiolos and Hellen matrilineally rather than partilineally exluded the Aitolians from the Hellenism ranks.
It is not accident that Euripedes(Phoinikian minister at the 25th Olympics) adducing Hellenic descent as Jonathan Hall mention in his book(Hellenicity: between Culture and Ethnicity.
Why the Hellanodikai increased from two (580 BC) in 9 (480 BC) as Pausanias mention ? This is evidence that in this  century the Greeks "discovered" other Greeks.
Originally posted by Sharrukin

There's just one more left, but I cannot deal with it right now because of work.  Thanks
I know and waiting your reponse in my last postSmile


Edited by akritas - 12-Oct-2006 at 12:30
Back to Top
Brainstorm View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 407
  Quote Brainstorm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 12:33
I think we should judge the incident as a whole.
And first of all search for Alexander I.
Who where Macedons before him ?
A tribe,which crossed the mountains to Low Macedonia in about 650 BC.(some 130 years after the 1st Olympics (acc.to the tradition),when almost all other Greeks were settled to their "homelands" for some centuries.

They lived there for over 150 years (650-490 (alexander's reign)-in a small tribal kingdom,including only Emathia,Bottiaia and Pieria-approximattely some 1/4 of ancient historical Macedonia!
During Alexander I time the small state became a real kingdom,expanding to what is today known as ancient Macedonia (modern Greek part as well as Bitola district in Rep.of Macedonia).
Alexander's next step then was to incorporate his state in the Greek world-participating in the Olympic Games was the best way for this.
    

Edited by Brainstorm - 12-Oct-2006 at 12:34
Back to Top
Istor the Macedonian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 68
  Quote Istor the Macedonian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 14:50
Those cases of barbarians' attempts to participate in the games are not cited because they were really often due the the shiningness of the games. I speak about barbarians living amongst Greeks, who were attracted by Greekness.

The source we have is the word hellanodikai. At the beginning those men were named agoono8etai that is rulers of the games, yet soon they were named hellanodikai, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. The source is also that passage of Herodotus about Alexander the first. Hellanodikai approved his Greekness. The source is the fact that "Greek judges" apparently had to test people's Greekness in order not to be "barbarians' judges". (Modern Greeks say agoonodikai !!)

No. Before Herodotus, Greeks were generally illiterate people and proof for this is Herodotus history itself. If one reads Herodotus and Thucydides histories he will see the progress made in Greek minds in 50 years. Hecateus knew about Macedonians but very few Greeks knew Hecateus.
When southern Greeks settled Chalkidike and other places of "Macedonia" ( 7 and 6c BC) there were no Macedonians at all there! The regions were inhabited mainly by Thracians. Thucydides wrote about this.

Hesiod was almost unknown to the Greeks in respect of Homer. The unifying element of Greeks was for about 5 centuries Homer's songs-poems. All Greek writers call Homer not by name but as "the poet". So, Homer was a must for Greeks and since he wrote makednees for RYTHM reasons and Herodotus had to follow him while the right word was makedanos (-ees). "dn" is not Greek sound (especially Dorian!!).

Again, did Alexander exclude Makednoi when he said that he was "King of Macedonians"? Be brave and answer me. 

Edited by Istor the Macedonian - 12-Oct-2006 at 14:59
Istor
Macedonian, therefore Greek!
Back to Top
logan View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 03-Jun-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 17:46
Here's the clarification.  There is nothing to indicate that the Makednians even inhabited Macedonia.  All that is said is that they inhabited the Pindus.  The Pindus do indeed extend into Macedonia, but if we take their route, we find that the region the Dorians inhabited before the Pindus (i.e. the region of Histiaiotis) was a region adjacent to the Pindus in Thessaly.  Anyone who knows geography knows that the Pindus Mts. were the western border of Thessaly.  When they abandoned the Pindus, they made their way into central Greece.  Again, for anyone who knows geography, the southern tip of the Pindus range ends near central Greece, where Doris was


Sorry but youve mixed the accounts. The first account in 1.56 makes reference to Dorians and Ionians not Makedonians. Do take a minute to re-read the text.

These races, Ionian and Dorian, were the foremost in ancient time, the first a Pelasgian and the second a Hellenic people. The Pelasgian race has never yet left its home; the Hellenic has wandered often and far. [3] For in the days of king Deucalion1 it inhabited the land of Phthia, then the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus, in the time of Dorus son of Hellen; driven from this Histiaean country by the Cadmeans, it settled about Pindus in the territory called Macedonian; from there again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where it took the name of Dorian


The very reference to Deukalion, indicates that we are talking about population movements that took place during or prior to the Mycenean era (depending on source of datation of the deluge). So based on our knowledge (according to Herodotus) of Perdiccas being the first to begin the Macedonian legacy we shouldnt even take this part of the text into account since it obviously pre-dates Perdiccas and the Makedones by several centuries.

The account that is of some value to the discussion is that in 8.137-39.
Taking into consideration this account and adding the factor geography which you mentioned. We can safely say that we know the exact location that the three brothers settled in the 8th century.
As Herodotus tells us this was in the town named Lebaea.
"they crossed over into the highlands of Macedonia till they came to the town Lebaea"
 
Today Lebaea is named Apidia, a little village in the prefecture of Voios situated on Mt. Voios at an altitude of some 800m. Vios is the western part of the municipality of Kozani and actually separates the municipalities of Grevena and Kastoria. Which means it is placed in Makedonia.

If we continue with the text we find that they leave Lebaea and move NE, pass the river Aliakmon and then settle in the prefecture of Emathia. The specific position is the most logical conclusion since its above the river and he mentions that above the region "rises the mountain called Bermius", not to mention that we fall directly upon the site of Vergina (Aigai)


We don't know whether it was first a regional term or first an ethnic term.  We only know that ethnic terms tend to become regional terms (and sometimes visa versa).  The question then becomes, why did the Dorians change their name to Makednians when they were in the Pindus Mts.?  I've given a brief answer, that since they inhabited the mountains they were given the name Makednians by virtue of being in the "heights" overlooking the lands such as Thessaly and central Greece.  Hence, they were Makednians, "highlanders".


Now, concerning the regional name "Macedonia".  It must pointed out that the region of Macedonia was at first comprehended merely the region of the Macedonian tribes which did not extend to the the Pindus Mts. until a later date.  If we were to take Thucydides description of the regions of the "Macedonians by blood" as well as the domain of the Temenid kings of Aegae, the entirety of Macedonian land fall short of the region of the Pindus, which according to Strabo's geography was inhabited by "Epeirote" tribes.  Macedonia did not extend to the Pindus Mts. until the conquests of Philip of Macedonia.


I find your suggestion on the name plausible, then again, it may very well derive from the region itself, since it is a highly mountainous region. But as Ive said I disagree on the notion that all Dorians were defined by the term in question and the reference to Pindus, which they did not settle on, well at least not in the first movements into the region.

As for Thucydides, yes it seems that only the region under Perdiccas control was titled as such but while he does not clarify if the term was originally regional or tribal, the reference to the other pure blooded Makedonians by other tribal names, most probably indicates the regional and not tribal origin of the term.



In our zeal to gain an understanding of a certain passage in another language, sometimes we get too specific in our exegetical methods, and fail to get the whole picture, the context if you will.  "te kai" if used by itself can mean a "distinction" as you say, but if used with the rest of the thought, it can have an "inclusive" meaning such as my example of the man.  We can appreciate this phrase's meaning when it is used with the term "ethnos".  Remember, they did not change their name from Makednian to Dorian until they reached the Peloponnese.  Hence they were Makednians when they were in Doris.  Hence when Herodotus was saying that they were of "Dorian and Makednian stock" he was saying that they were Dorians of the Peloponnese and Doris.  Macedonians are nowhere in evidence.



The name change as noted above is wrong since the quote does not mention Makedonians but Dorians and we have no indication that they bore the name prior to their establishment in the region.
As for the language, I do speak it so its not foreign to me but since my statement isnt adequate, Ill quote perseus.tufts.

II. te . . kai . . , or te kai . . , both . . and . . , where te points forward to kai, and usu. need not be translated, e.g. Atreids te anax andrn kai dios Achilleus Il.1.7 ; ei d homou polemos te damai kai loimos Achaious ib.61; deilos te kai outidanos kaleoimn ib. 293; zon te kai artemea 7.308 , cf. 327,338, al.; ts te gs eouss epitdes kai tn potamn eontn sphi summachn Hdt.4.47 ; bouletai te kai epistatai Th.2.35 ; ho phus te kai trapheis Pl.R.396c ; basin te gar palin tn autn echousi tn ZB kai . . Euc.1.47 ; sts. the elements joined by te . . kai . . are joined in order to be compared or contrasted rather than simply joined, kakistos nun te kai palai dokei S.Ant. 181 ; mesambri te esti kai to karta ginetai psuchron Hdt.4.181 ; etuchon te hustatai exanachtheisai kai ks kateidon Id.7.194 ; epausato te ho anemos kai to kuma estrto ib.193; tauta . . nun te kai tote Ar.Av. 24 ; chris to t' eipein polla kai ta kairia S.OC808 ; hoson to t' archein kai to douleuein dicha A.Pr.927 ; sts. (like te . . te) even used of alternatives, diandicha mermrixen, hippous te strepsai kai enantibion machesasthai Il.8.168 ; en dikai te kai para dikan Pi.O.2.16 ; theou te . . thelontos kai m thelontos A.Th.427 ; peisas te . . kai m tuchn Th.3.42 :--on hoi te alloi kai . . , e.g. tois te allois hapasi kai Lakedaimoniois Isoc.12.249 , and alls te kai . . , v. allos 11.6, alls 1.3

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?layout.refembed=2&layout.refdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0125&layout.refcit=book%3D8%3Achapter%3D43%3Asection%3D1&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%23102753&layout.reflookup=te&layout.reflang=greek&layout.refwordcount=3&layout.refabo=Perseus%3Aabo%3Atlg%2C0016%2C001


As you can see the use of te kai indicates the distinction between the two terms exactly as seen in the Herakles - Malian quote I used as an example.






 
 
 

The material that Hoffman was studying (1906) was either of the same date of, or more commonly later than the Pella curse tablet.   Hence, while we can postulate several generations of the writers of these short Greek inscriptions (no matter what dialect was used) it only indicates a Greek presence other than Ionic.  Again, in the fifth century we document "Greeks inhabiting the land [of Macedonia]" (Thucydides, 4.124.1), without any indication of origin.  If they were "Aeolians" then we have a source of origin from perhaps Thessaly where an Aeolic dialect was spoken. 
 


Possible but problematic since we have no account nor indications of colonization by Thessalians which could explain such an influence.
 

The Olympics was simply the earliest indicator of a Greek self-identity.  The Thessalians were members of other pan-Hellenic religious and military leagues such as in the Lelantine War (c. 700 BC) and the Amphictiony of Anthela which they soon dominated by about 600 BC. 

The Lelantine war is far from being able to be described as a pan-Hellenic event, its much closer to a local event with some minor alliances with neighbouring cities. But none of the mainland cities had participated..
Now as for the Amphyctionic League, the problem is that the members arent defined as city-states, but as tribes. This is clear in Aeschines On the False Embassy 2.116.1 :
To prove that they were Amphictyonic cities and thus protected by the oaths, I enumerated twelve tribes which shared the shrine: the Thessalians, Boeotians (not the Thebans only), Dorians, Ionians, Perrhaebi, Magnetes, Dolopians, Locrians, Oetaeans, Phthiotians, Malians, and Phocians. And I showed that each of these tribes has an equal vote, the greatest equal to the least: that the delegate from Dorion and Cytinion has equal authority with the Lacedaemonian delegates, for each tribe casts two votes; again, that of the Ionian delegates those from Eretria and Priene have equal authority with those from Athens and the rest in the same way.
. beside this, there is also the problem in date. The league was founded prior to the conquest of Perdiccas

 
Of all the proof texts I've read, the word "dialect" is not even in evidence.
 
"It was a pleasure merely to hear the sound of her voice, with which, like an instrument of many strings, she could pass from one language to another; so that there were few of the barbarian nations that she answered by an interpreter; to most of them she spoke herself, as to the Ethiopians, Troglodytes, Hebrews, Arabians, Syrians, Medes, Parthians, and many others, whose language she had learnt; which was all the more surprising because most of the kings, her predecessors, scarcely gave themselves the trouble to acquire the Egyptian tongue, and several of them quite abandoned the Macedonian."
http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/antony.html[/url]
 
I have another similar quote from a book.  Okay, let's table this quote until we can get a Greek text, for proofreading.  Agreed?


Heres the text in Hellinic :

[4] κέντρον. ἡδονὴ δὲ καὶ φθεγγομένης ἐπῆν τῷ ἤχῳ· καὶ τὴν γλῶτταν ὥσπερ ὄργανόν τι πολύχορδον εὐπετῶς τρέπουσα καθ' ἣν βούλοιτο διάλεκτον, ὀλίγοις παντάπασι δι' ἑρμηνέως ἐνετύγχανε βαρβάροις, τοῖς δὲ πλείστοις αὐτὴ δι' αὑτῆς ἀπεδίδου τὰς ἀποκρίσεις, οἷον Αἰθίοψι Τρωγλοδύταις Ἑβραίοις Ἄραψι Σύροις Μήδοις Παρθυαίοις. [5] πολλῶν δὲ λέγεται καὶ ἄλλων ἐκμαθεῖν γλώττας, τῶν πρὸ αὐτῆς βασιλέων οὐδὲ τὴν Αἰγυπτίαν ἀνασχομένων παραλαβεῖν διάλεκτον, ἐνίων δὲ καὶ τὸ μακεδονίζειν ἐκλιπόντων.

http://www.mikrosapoplous.gr/anc_texts/texts_plut.html

 hope this clear it.
 

Hmmmph. :)  On the surface this seems to be a fair question.  You are right, there is no account about any of the specifics you've mentioned.  However, if Alexander followed Olympian rules, you would have known that Olympic athletes had to be training in Olympia for a whole month before the start of the games
 
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Olympics/faq6.html
 
and thus, it was inevitable that his fellow athletes would have had some familiarity with him.  They were social events as well, you know.  When it was time for competition, they would have already known that he was "Macedonian".  He was immediately rejected by his fellow athletes as a "barbarian". 
 


Well this is a recorded fact, but the problem is that the first account comes from Pindaros a contemporary of Alexander I (well he actually outlived him) .
So we cant say beyond doubt that this rule existed during the event in question, especially since Pausanias describes continuous alterations in the gamesand their rules  because they had forgotten the old traditions. (5.8-10)
Then again, even if the rule was applied during the event. Philostratus in his Apollonius Tyaneus 6 tells us that the actual reason for calling them in a whole month prior to the events was to test their abilities, and place them in categories depending on these very abilities. Now, if we add the account of Pausanias (6.13) of them running in 4 series we see that the month required was to judge their physical abilities, since the origin issue must have been clarified since day one.
Im sure youll agree that that examining a runner for a whole month and only during the day of the race look into the origin issue its simply impractical.
 
.

Ive left out a couple of issues already answered by others for practical reasons..
 
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 01:37

I guess nobody is going to grant me the courtesy of being able to respond to all posts in a comprehensible way. Okay, then I will just have to respond to all posts at my leisure, so that I can be able to do to keep this thread manageable. This method will obviously slow down responses, and thus may take many days, so, the only thing that the most recent posters can expect is that I will respond, but not quickly.

akritas
 
The derivation came from the linguistics , well knower of  the ancient Greek language. Do you have have anything else as about the suffix mak ?
 
Like I said, I don't dispute the etymology of the name.  But, to go all the way back to mak, isn't really helpful.  If, according to a popular theory, the Macedonians were a Dorian tribe, then all we need is Makedonon being derived from Makednon.  Nothing further is needed to prove an etymological relationship.
 
You said for mixing tribes. Why the ancient writers never mentioned that ?
 
What comes immediately to mind is that Herodotus speaks of Ionians being mixed (1.106.1-3).  I remember reading about other mixes but those sources don't immediately come to mind. 
 
(The Indo-European tribes that descended to Peloponnesus from Pindus and Doris were given the name "Dorians," with their violent descent and settlement known in the Greek and foreign historiography as the "Dorian invasion."
 
Right, but in Herodotus they were given the name "Dorian" only when they settled the Peloponnese. 
 

 

Originally posted by Sharrukin

I am not questioning the idea that Alexander's ancestors may have come from Argos, no matter how it was "proved".  You know, it must be mentioned that this was obviously the first time that the Greeks had heard that a "Greek" was a ruler in Macedonia, unlike the "Greek" rulers of Molossia.  Until that time, Macedonia was considered a barbarous land.  A Greek coming from there had to prove that he was a Greek.

You mention a lot the word barbarian. The ancient Greeks(pro Isocrates era) used the word barbarian in order to decsribe people even they belong in theirs race. I think that you are from the people that believe the word barbarian has as only meaning the foreigner.

 
I am aware of other meanings of the word, however, when the word is used against an acknowledged Greek individual or group it seemed to bare a purely political significance, an insult at best. Now, if "Greekness" became a self-identification by the early 8th century BC, then the concept of the "barbarian" must have occured at the same time, otherwise, how can an outsider be so described, especially in context to the early Olympics?
 
The word barbarian in the ancient Greek linguistic has two different derivations. In my opinion Strabo [14,II,28]has gave the correct etymological meaning of the barbarian in the ancient period.

 

I suppose that the word "barbarian" was at first uttered onomatopoetically in reference to people who enunciated words only with difficulty and talked harshly and raucously, like our words "battarizein," "traulizein," and "psellizein";for we are by nature very much inclined to denote sounds by words that sound like them, on account of their homogeneity. Wherefore onomatopoetic words abound in our language, as, for example, "celaryzein," and also "clange," "psophos," "boe," and "crotos," most of which are by now used in their proper sense.

 

The term "barbarize," also, has the same origin; for we are wont to use this too in reference to those who speak Hellenic badly, not to those who talk Carian. So, therefore, we must interpret the terms "speak barbarously" and "barbarously-speaking" as applying to those who speak Hellenic badly. And it was from the term "Carise" that the term "barbarize" was used in a different sense in works on the art of speaking Hellenic; and so was the term "soloecise," whether derived from Soli, or made up in some other way.

 
Strabo is merely theorizing.  When he says "I suppose" he is talking as if he didn't really know.  His theorizing is based on mere deductive reasoning, not true knowledge.
 
 

So is clear that the name barbarian in the Herodotus era has also as meaning those that speak Greek badly even they are Greek.

The barbarian and Demosthenis era (150 years after) is different issue.

 
Herodotus uses the term "barbarian" exclusively to mean a non-Greek individual or people.  There is no significant difference even in the era of Demosthenes.
 

Originally posted by Sharrukin

Believe it or not but patriarchical societies tend to be much more fluid in accepting outsiders than other kinds of society.  Let's take the example of the present-day Baluchis and Pathans.  The Baluchis are getting larger in population while the Pathans are getting smaller.  There is no room for social mobility in Pathan society, but since there is in Baluchi society, many disenfranchised Pathans defect to the patriarchal Baluchis who absorb them.

 

Originally posted by Sharrukin

It should not matter where I get my examples.  It is still a valid fact

 

 

I think you have the tendency to compare different civilizations from those that survived and grew up in the Helladic space. Of course the ancient writers spoken for Karanus and his people that conquered a land that previous lived Tharcians,Phrygians e.t.c.

 
Like I've said.  It shouldn't matter where I get my examples.  Human nature is varied enough that any number of factors could have resulted in a foreign rule over natives other than by military means. 
 
As for the "Caranus tradition" it is of late contrivance.  The Macedonians, no longer satisfied with the earlier "Perdiccas tradition" of banished Temenids, now created a "Caranus tradition" regarding a Temenid with a conquering army.  Perdiccas is now relegated to 4th ruler, while Caranus is now the founder of Aegae.  To make it even nicer, he is the "brother of Pheidon", the great Temenid king of Argos.  The Macedonians were great in reinventing their own past.
 
As I said you in my previous post is very difficult a people ruled from Kings with different race. Thracian, Illyrians, Mollosians, Spartans all known kingdomships societies ruled from men with the same race.

Why Macedonians must be different?

 
I dispute the Molossians in your list, but that is an argument for the Epirote thread.  How about Mitannians ruling over Hurrians, or Akkadians ruling over Sumerians, or Amorites ruling over Akkadians, or Hyksos ruling over Egyptians, or even Macedonians ruling over Egyptians?  "Difficult" does not mean impossible.
 
 

Originally posted by Sharrukin

All I'm saying is that the Macedonians were already present in Pieria in the 8th century BC.  The "Temenid" kings began their rule in the 7th century BC.

 
Originally posted by Sharrukin

Keeping this in mind and adding that, according to Herodotus (8.137-38) it was during Perdiccas' life that the region came under 'Makedonian' control. We can safely say that based on his version, the first attempt to form a 'kingdom' appears some 100 years (since we know Perdiccas live approx 700-670 BC) after the first Olympics.
After adding all this to the victor's list, we can conclude that it took less time to see a Makedonian participation in the Olympics to what it took the 'pure' Thessalians, which should make the Alexander episode an incorrect way of arguing the Hellenic perception of Makedonian's background.

The exactly dating is something hard to find it.  We have two other datings which do not at first sight accord with any of the previous statements: the chronicle of Eusebios (Chron.icon  II, 7475 Schoene)  introduces Pheidon, brother of Karanus   at Abr. 1220, that is, 797 BC, while Isidorus of Sevilla (Chronicon 34.) dated him to the time of the first Olympic games in 776 BC.

 
Like I've said, the "Caranus tradition" was a later fabrication.  Most modern chronologies of the Macedonian kingdom, that I've seen, begin with Perdiccas, usually dating from the narrow range (c. 650-640 BC). As you may know, the date of Pheidon in classical sources is contradictory with information for dating him to as recently as about 600 BC.  However, modern dating puts his reign in the period from about 680 to 655 BC.    It is best to repudiate the Caranus chronology and stick with the earliest tradition we have, the Perdiccas tradition and its chronology beginning in the middle of the 7th century.  Before this, we already have a Macedonian presence in Pieria in the 8th century BC. 

Plato was quite explicit about the tyrannical behaviour of the Messenian and Argive kings being the cause of the decline of these states, while pointing out that similar development in Sparta was checked by Lykourgos.

A similar approach was probably taken Aristotle, who mentioned Pheidon as a king who had turned his kingship into a tyranny by overstepping the bounds of traditional royal power, and spoke also of the tyranny of Charillos at Sparta before Lykourgan legislation.
All this could have made the assumption of the approximate contemporaneity of Pheidon and Lykourgos quite acceptable to the ancientsand, though we have no evidence that they were ever explicitly connected with each other (except in the chronological systems), could nevertheless have given either Theopompos or someone else working on Macedonian history sufficient grounds for dating Pheidon and with him the beginning of the Macedonian dynasty to the time of Lykourgos.
 
Theopompos was working with a reinvented Macedonian tradition, hence it is worthless.

 
Originally posted by Sharrukin

Because the Greek civilization was powerful and the Macedonians were familiar with it, and it already had a much wider spread, whereas the culture of Macedonia was not.  This is not a unique situation.  We can ask, why the Persians did not spread their culture and language throughout their empire.  The reason was that there was already an Aramaic culture which was already widespread and powerful.

Why then Persians called the Macedonians as Yuana ? IT is clear from inscriptions of Darius I that the word Yauna or Ia-manu (-ma was actually pronounced as -va, hence Ia-va-nu), the name of the Ionians of Asia Minor who were conquered by Cyrus in 545 B.C., was applied to all Greeks without distinction. The Hebrew word Yawān (Javan) was also originally the designation of the Ionians, but it gradually came to be used for the whole Greek race, and the ethnic name denoted also a political entity. The term Yavana may well have been first applied by the Indians to the Greeks of various cities of Asia Minor who were settled in the areas contiguous to north-west India.

Yes, the Persian inscriptions designated the Greeks as Yauna which comes from the name of the Ionian Greeks.  But that's it.  There was no specific term or context in those same inscriptions for Macedonians.  Hammond put forward a theory that a group of Greeks whom the Persians knew as the Yauna takabara were the Macedonians, indicating that the Persian word takabara, "shield wearing" indicated the Macedonian almost flat hat called the kausia.  However, the Persian source is far from clear as to what the Persians actually meant, because the name Yauna takabara only exists in a list of land-names in the royal Persian inscriptions, without any other information.  For all we know, it could have been talking about the Greek petasos, the brimmed hat worn by Greeks.  We know that it was worn by Greek travellors who undoubtedly visited the Persian court with it.  Hermes "the messenger" wore the petasos.  We must therefore be much more cautious as to how we conclude that the Persians meant "such-and-such" with the briefest of information.

Back to Top
Brainstorm View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 407
  Quote Brainstorm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 08:23
As for "yauna takabara".
1st:The Persian catalogue mentioned by Hammond,refers to European part of the Empire.
(Persians held Macedonia and Thrace in Europe)
2nd:"Yauna" was used by Persians for all Greeks-not just Ionians.
Back to Top
akritas View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Hegemom

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Greek Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
  Quote akritas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 12:49

Originally posted by Sharrukin

Strabo is merely theorizing.  When he says "I suppose" he is talking as if he didn't really know.  His theorizing is based on mere deductive reasoning, not true knowledge.

 

 

Do you have something different? Any other ancient source that gave the definition of the barbarian? If you have it then I will re-consider my argyment. Otherwise I cant reject Strabo because is not suit in my hypothesis as you doing very easyli.

 
Originally posted by Sharrukin

 
As for the "Caranus tradition" it is of late contrivance.  The Macedonians, no longer satisfied with the earlier "Perdiccas tradition" of banished Temenids, now created a "Caranus tradition" regarding a Temenid with a conquering army.  Perdiccas is now relegated to 4th ruler, while Caranus is now the founder of Aegae.  To make it even nicer, he is the "brother of Pheidon", the great Temenid king of Argos.  The Macedonians were great in reinventing their own past.

 

Like I've said, the "Caranus tradition" was a later fabrication.  Most modern chronologies of the Macedonian kingdom, that I've seen, begin with Perdiccas, usually dating from the narrow range (c. 650-640 BC). As you may know, the date of Pheidon in classical sources is contradictory with information for dating him to as recently as about 600 BC.  However, modern dating puts his reign in the period from about 680 to 655 BC.    It is best to repudiate the Caranus chronology and stick with the earliest tradition we have, the Perdiccas tradition and its chronology beginning in the middle of the 7th century.  Before this, we already have a Macedonian presence in Pieria in the 8th century BC. 

 

Theopompos was working with a reinvented Macedonian tradition, hence it is worthless

 

My example of the Caranus was my proof to show you the connection and the gap of the 100 years as you said. Macedonian history is written from different sources and not only from Herodotos. Theopombos, Hecataios ,Ptolemeos,Aristivoulos and many others spoken for the Argeaves  Caranus and Pheidonas. According to Ephoros the Herakleids invaded Peloponnesos 735 years before the beginning of the campaign of Alexander the Great, thus in 1069 BC.

 All these ancient writers were parts of the Macedonian Royal propaganda? is like to read the Borza.

The ancient Macedonians might be Dorian but not Greek

 

Quellenforchung( seeiking of the source) and Quellenkritik(criticism of the source). The variation in the ancient statements has given the moderns a good chance to place Pheidon-Caranus  in whatever historical context they please, proposing ingenious constructions to determine his true date, which has been placed anywhere from the middle of the eighth to the first half of the sixth century BC. Most of them of course  they speak for the first of course.

 

As about the Macedonian presence I will back later by archaeological evidence because now we have the literacy debate.

Originally posted by Sharrukin

Yes, the Persian inscriptions designated the Greeks as Yauna which comes from the name of the Ionian Greeks.  But that's it.  There was no specific term or context in those same inscriptions for Macedonians.  Hammond put forward a theory that a group of Greeks whom the Persians knew as the Yauna takabara were the Macedonians, indicating that the Persian word takabara, "shield wearing" indicated the Macedonian almost flat hat called the kausia.  However, the Persian source is far from clear as to what the Persians actually meant, because the name Yauna takabara only exists in a list of land-names in the royal Persian inscriptions, without any other information.  For all we know, it could have been talking about the Greek petasos, the brimmed hat worn by Greeks.  We know that it was worn by Greek travellors who undoubtedly visited the Persian court with it.  Hermes "the messenger" wore the petasos.  We must therefore be much more cautious as to how we conclude that the Persians meant "such-and-such" with the briefest of information.

Is not only Hammond conclusion.Many writers mention that. The Apadana Foundation inscription , the later texts (DNa, XPh), seem to represent a coherent sequence: Ionians of the Asiatic mainland, followed by coastal Ionians,Yauna Takabara, , in other words, east Greeks, Hellespontine Greeks, north Aegean Greeks, and Skudra as Thracians.

 

Yauna Takabara seem in some cases, as at Susa, to correspond with earlier designations of coastal Ionians (Paradraya) and have conventionally been taken to mean Macedonians, because of the distinctive flat hats depicted on coins from the Macedonian region. But this is a misnomer. Coins pre-dating regal Macedonian issues which show large hats are difficult to locate geographically and are even harder to identify according to ethnic origin. The Argead dynasty was just beginning to extend control over areas beyond the Thermaic Gulf. Even in the later 5th century, tribal designations are encountered more often than topographic names (Thuk. 2. 99). If Yuana Takabara  were considered by the Persians to correspond specifically to Macedonians, this should be taken to mean their diplomatic partners from 511 BC onwards, the Argeads, and Argead dependencies. Only in 492 did this relationship change from one of loose alliance, albeit on unequal terms, to one of close dependency (Hdt. 6. 44. 1).

 

Actually we have and the Indian Yavana as called from them the Macedonians. The earliest Indian form known is Yavana, attested in Pāṇinī. It was suggested by Belvalkar that the word Yavana, where -va stands for an original Greek Ϝ, must be at least as old as the 9th century B.C., because the digamma was lost as early as 800 B.C. But, as Skold has pointed out, the digamma was dropped at different times in different dialects; in the Ionian dialect it may perhaps have vanished only a short time before the earliest inscriptions, which are of the seventh or perhaps the 8th century B.C. Why the Indies called Yavana the Macedonians ?



Edited by akritas - 13-Oct-2006 at 13:29
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 02:47

akritas

So as I see you beleive and focus what your dictionary mention as about the meaning of the Hellenodikai. Let me point some thinks.The consequence (indented or not) of both the aggregative enrolment of the ethnic neponyms with the Hellenic genealogy and the policy of the ethnic exclusion practiced by the Hellanodikai was that many groups that we would today consider Greeks(not from you) were regarded as Hellenic by their contempories.

The Aitolians were a good point.Dispute the inclusion of the Aitolian Males among Agaristes suitors there are no attested Olympic victors from Aitolia in the Archaic period and the fact that the eponymous Aitolos degree could only be traced back to Aiolos and Hellen matrilineally rather than partilineally exluded the Aitolians from the Hellenism ranks.

True, there were no attested winners coming from Aetolia from either the archaic or classical periods. But, like Ive said from an earlier post, the Olympic evidence is merely the earliest evidence of an all-inclusive Greek self-identity. As youve mentioned, acceptable Greek suitors were sent from Aetolia. Thucydides in the pre-classical history part of his Peloponnesian War, includes Aetolia as part of Greece (1.5.3). Hence, other sources mention the Aetolians as Greek.

Now, as for the "neponyms", I must point out that when Hesiod mentions the family relations of Deucalion, Hellen belonged to one branch and Macedon to another. Hellen was the ancestor to the Dorians, Aeolians, Ionians, and Achaeans. Macedon was not. This is the first mention of Macedon in any record, and not only was Macedon not of the line of Hellen but he was not even of the line of Dorus, either. Macedon was merely cousin to the Greeks. Hence, since the supposed "evidence" of a relationship between Macedonians and Dorians that some try to glean from Herodotus can be easily challenged, this shows that in the Archaic Period, the Greeks did not see any connection between the Macedonians and the Dorians.

It is not accident that Euripedes(Phoinikian minister at the 25th Olympics) adducing Hellenic descent as Jonathan Hall mention in his book(Hellenicity: between Culture and Ethnicity.

Why the Hellanodikai increased from two (580 BC) in 9 (480 BC) as Pausanias mention ? This is evidence that in this century the Greeks "discovered" other Greeks.

How about to better manage the games because of the increase of events? How about to better manage the games because of an increase in more colonies? How about to better manage an influx of more athletes per place then there were before?

Originally posted by Sharrukin

Strabo is merely theorizing. When he says "I suppose" he is talking as if he didn't really know. His theorizing is based on mere deductive reasoning, not true knowledge.

Do you have something different? Any other ancient source that gave the definition of the barbarian? If you have it then I will re-consider my argyment. Otherwise I cant reject Strabo because is not suit in my hypothesis as you doing very easyli.

Well, lets see. When we read about "barbarians", the context is unmistakably that of "non-Greeks", like, say 95% of the time. When we first read about "barbarian" in any Greek ancient source, it is already used to mean "non-Greek". Unfortunately they date from the 5th century BC, and not before, but only because older sources mainly concerned themselves with either religion, local concerns or mythology. We read that it is used in the sense of what you say in the 4th century BC, hence, that meaning was later in date. Herodotus, himself uses the term exclusively for non-Greeks.

Originally posted by Sharrukin

As for the "Caranus tradition" it is of late contrivance. The Macedonians, no longer satisfied with the earlier "Perdiccas tradition" of banished Temenids, now created a "Caranus tradition" regarding a Temenid with a conquering army. Perdiccas is now relegated to 4th ruler, while Caranus is now the founder of Aegae. To make it even nicer, he is the "brother of Pheidon", the great Temenid king of Argos. The Macedonians were great in reinventing their own past.

Like I've said, the "Caranus tradition" was a later fabrication. Most modern chronologies of the Macedonian kingdom, that I've seen, begin with Perdiccas, usually dating from the narrow range (c. 650-640 BC). As you may know, the date of Pheidon in classical sources is contradictory with information for dating him to as recently as about 600 BC. However, modern dating puts his reign in the period from about 680 to 655 BC. It is best to repudiate the Caranus chronology and stick with the earliest tradition we have, the Perdiccas tradition and its chronology beginning in the middle of the 7th century. Before this, we already have a Macedonian presence in Pieria in the 8th century BC.

Theopompos was working with a reinvented Macedonian tradition, hence it is worthless

My example of the Caranus was my proof to show you the connection and the gap of the 100 years as you said. Macedonian history is written from different sources and not only from Herodotos. Theopombos, Hecataios ,Ptolemeos,Aristivoulos and many others spoken for the Argeaves Caranus and Pheidonas. According to Ephoros the Herakleids invaded Peloponnesos 735 years before the beginning of the campaign of Alexander the Great, thus in 1069 BC.

Ive already dealt with the contradictions among the traditions themselves, hence they are not any proof. In order for there to have been the kind of "connection" youve talked about, the historians had to reconcile what "traditions" they received from the Macedonians and place it in the context of Greek history. Since there were points of Greek history that are themselves contradictory chronologically, one or another Greek historian had to subscribe to one of many schemes of Greek chronology to place the Macedonian traditions.

From a realistic archaeological point-of-view, any supposed beginning of the Macedonian monarchy could not have really begun before about 650 BC because the period before that (especially at Vergina) was a period of Illyrian cultural dominance which lasted from about 800 to 650 BC.

All these ancient writers were parts of the Macedonian Royal propaganda? is like to read the Borza.

""The ancient Macedonians might be Dorian but not Greek""

When you have two different traditions from two different times which the Greek authors say came from the Macedonians themselves, it becomes quite clear that it is propaganda. Or should we believe naively that the earlier tradition was a mistake and that the later tradition is the real history?. This is how heresay works. You have an original story which through time gets embellished with exaggeration and or political manipulation. The resulting story looks even more attractive than the original story.

Quellenforchung( seeiking of the source) and Quellenkritik(criticism of the source). The variation in the ancient statements has given the moderns a good chance to place Pheidon-Caranus in whatever historical context they please, proposing ingenious constructions to determine his true date, which has been placed anywhere from the middle of the eighth to the first half of the sixth century BC. Most of them of course they speak for the first of course.

See my remarks above.

As about the Macedonian presence I will back later by archaeological evidence because now we have the literacy debate.

Looks like Ive already started the archaeological debate.

Originally posted by Sharrukin

Yes, the Persian inscriptions designated the Greeks as Yauna which comes from the name of the Ionian Greeks. But that's it. There was no specific term or context in those same inscriptions for Macedonians. Hammond put forward a theory that a group of Greeks whom the Persians knew as the Yauna takabara were the Macedonians, indicating that the Persian word takabara, "shield wearing" indicated the Macedonian almost flat hat called the kausia. However, the Persian source is far from clear as to what the Persians actually meant, because the name Yauna takabara only exists in a list of land-names in the royal Persian inscriptions, without any other information. For all we know, it could have been talking about the Greek petasos, the brimmed hat worn by Greeks. We know that it was worn by Greek travellors who undoubtedly visited the Persian court with it. Hermes "the messenger" wore the petasos. We must therefore be much more cautious as to how we conclude that the Persians meant "such-and-such" with the briefest of information.

Is not only Hammond conclusion.Many writers mention that. The Apadana Foundation inscription , the later texts (DNa, XPh), seem to represent a coherent sequence: Ionians of the Asiatic mainland, followed by coastal Ionians,Yauna Takabara, , in other words, east Greeks, Hellespontine Greeks, north Aegean Greeks, and Skudra as Thracians.

The only text that even mentions Yauna Takabara is Dariuss Naqsh-i-Rustam inscription (DNa), dated to about 486 BC. Okay, there seems to be a coherent sequence: Armenia, Cappadocia, Sardes, Ionia, Scythia, Skudra, and Yauna Takabara. Heres the problem: We do not know the extent of either Skudra or Yauna Takabara. Its a given that Skudra probably included Thrace, since the Apadana has a picture of a Skudran which resembles pictures of Thracians by Greek artists. However, we know from descriptions of other Persian provinces, that they were by nature, quite multi-national. The Persian province of Babylonia included not just Babylonians, but Syrians, Phoenicians, Jews, and Philistines, etc. The Persian province of Ionia didnt just include Ionians (and other Greeks) but also included Carians and Lycians. Skudra was probably multinational.

From Greek sources we note that Macedonia had Thracians of its own (Mygdonians, Edonians, Crestonians, Bisaltians, etc.). We note that mythology which places certain mythological figures such as Dionysus and Orpheus, place them in "Thrace" (the region of Olympus and Pieria - Macedonia). The Greek city of Methone was said to have been founded in "Thrace," and the Athenian tributary known as the "Thraceward" cleruchy included coastal Macedonia. Macedonia could have been part of Skudra.

Finally there is the controversy of the name "Skudra" itself. Most Persian province names reflect the name of the most common ethnic group within that province or a land/people description in the Persian language. For the latter, there is no Persian translation, and for the former, there is no equivalent people/land name in Greek sources, except for one place-name - Skydra, located in Macedonia itself, only about 20 miles to the northwest of Aegae. We note that according to Herodotus two seats of Persian government are mentioned, at Doriscus and Eion. According to (7.25.1-2) Persian military provisions were stored at Eion and Doriscus as well as Macedonia. Since we know that governors were based at Eion (7.107.1; 7.113.1; 7.118.1) and Doriscus (7.59.1; 7.105.1; 7.106.2), we can deduce that another was placed in Macedonia at the place mentioned.

Yauna takabara, in this revised scheme may very well be the mainland Greeks themselves. We note that most of the Greeks gave up the "tokens of submission" to Darius (6.48-49).

Yauna Takabara seem in some cases, as at Susa, to correspond with earlier designations of coastal Ionians (Paradraya) and have conventionally been taken to mean Macedonians, because of the distinctive flat hats depicted on coins from the Macedonian region. But this is a misnomer. Coins pre-dating regal Macedonian issues which show large hats are difficult to locate geographically and are even harder to identify according to ethnic origin. The Argead dynasty was just beginning to extend control over areas beyond the Thermaic Gulf. Even in the later 5th century, tribal designations are encountered more often than topographic names (Thuk. 2. 99). If Yuana Takabara were considered by the Persians to correspond specifically to Macedonians, this should be taken to mean their diplomatic partners from 511 BC onwards, the Argeads, and Argead dependencies. Only in 492 did this relationship change from one of loose alliance, albeit on unequal terms, to one of close dependency (Hdt. 6. 44. 1).

If, according your evidence, the identification of the Yauna Takabara with the Macedonians is not so clear-cut, than.

Actually we have and the Indian Yavana as called from them the Macedonians. The earliest Indian form known is Yavana, attested in P~an??ini. It was suggested by Belvalkar that the word Yavana, where -va stands for an original Greek ?, must be at least as old as the 9th century B.C., because the digamma was lost as early as 800 B.C. But, as Skold has pointed out, the digamma was dropped at different times in different dialects; in the Ionian dialect it may perhaps have vanished only a short time before the earliest inscriptions, which are of the seventh or perhaps the 8th century B.C.

As Ive stated in an earlier post, the language of communication and government in the Persian Empire was Aramaic. The Aramaic name for the Greeks was Yavan which they adopted from the Phoenicians at a time when the Ionians were still known as Iavones. Since we have evidence of Aramaic being used in eastern Iran, it does not take much to see that the Indians adopted the Aramaic word, hence their term Yavana. Contrast this with the other Indian term for Greeks, Yona, which was probably adopted from the Persian form Yauna.

[quote]Why the Indies called Yavana the Macedonians ?

I can give you three reasons:

1. Because the Macedonians were speaking Greek. The evidence suggest that they were already speaking koine Greek

2. Because the Greeks were the majority of colonists near the Indians. We note that the last Macedonian governors of Bactria who revolted and became kings were deposed by Greeks who then became kings. They wouldnt have been able to do so without a considerable Greek support.

3. Because any far-westerner was considered a "Greek". Some peoples classify foreigners by what direction they came. At one time the Persians thought of easterners as all "Turanians" and all westerners as "Romans" regardless of ethnic origin.

Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 10:36
You say that Macedonians were Greeks? But first, what means to be Greek?


What history do you say Macedonians have had in the Ancient times, before the known period?

Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 11:31
    Now, I will copy the ancient texts which proves the non-Greek character of Macedonians, in the acceptance of the Ancients (I think that Alexander pretedned to be Greek was just a manipulation of him and that he as found 'Greek' was because rejecting his pretentions would lead to great damages for the Greeks at Olympia):




Diodorus Siculus
Ancient Greek Historian


[1] For even Greeks Thespians, Plataeans and Orchomenians, and some other hostile to the Thebans who had joined the king (of the Macedonians) in the campaign. 17.13.5.

[2] For many days the king lay helpless under his treatment, and the Greeks who had been settled in Bactria and Sogdiana, who had long borne unhappily their sojourn among peoples of another race and now received word that the king has died of his wounds, revolted against the Macedonians. 17.99.5-6.

...
[6] From Europe, the Greek cities AND the Macedonians also sent embassies, as well as the Illyrians and most of those who dwell about the Adriatic Sea, the Thracian peoples and even those of their neighbors the Gauls, whose people became known then first in the Greek world. 17.113.2.
...
There are 40 passages from Diodorus, all the same clear:
http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/diodorus.html



Justin
Roman Historian
...
The Macedonian army, which will have the exclusive status, was to be supported by the Greek army and by the armies of the adjacent conquered nations" [9.5.5-8].
...


Arrian
Ancient Greek Historian
The Campaigns of Alexander

...
[4] [Book II - Battle of Issus] "Darius' Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water and save the day for their left wing, already in retreat, while the Macedonians, in their turn, with Alexander's triumph plain before their eyes, were determined to equal his success and not forfeit the proud title of invincible, hitherto universally bestowed upon them.
The fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian." [p.119]
...
[14] Alexander continues to speak to his Macedonians and allies: "Come, then; add the rest of Asia to what you already possess - a small addition to the great sum of your conquests. What great or noble work could we ourselves have achieved had we thought it enough, living at ease in Macedon, merely to guard our homes, excepting no burden beyond checking the encroachment of the Thracians on our borders, or the Illyrians and Triballians, or perhaps such Greeks as might prove a menace to our comfort." [p.294] Arrian, Book 5.




Quintus Curtius Rufus
Roman Historian
The History of Alexander - Penguin Classics

[19] [The trial of Hermolaus] "As for you Callisthenes, the only person to think you a man (because you are an assassin), I know why you want him brought forward. It is so that the insult which sometimes uttered against me and sometimes heard from him can be repeated by his lips before this gathering. Were he a Macedonian I would have introduced him here along with you - a teacher truly worth of his pupil. As it is, he is an Olynthian and does not enjoy the same rights." [p.195]




Thucydides
Greek Commander and Historian

"In all there were about three thousand Hellenic heavy infantry, accompanied by all the Macedonian cavalry with the Chalcidians, near one thousand strong, besides an immense crowd of barbarians." (Thucydides 4.124)



Pausanias
Greek Historian

"After the death of Alexander, when the Greeks had raised a second war against the Macedonians, the Messenians took part, as I have shown earlier in my account of Attica" [4.28.3].




Medeius of Larisa
Greek Companion in the Macedonian Army

Medeius of Larisa was one of the Greeks accompanying Alexander the Great in Asia. According to him the Thessalians are the most northerly of the Greeks, thus excluding the Macedonians as non-Greeks since they live north of Thessaly.



Pseudo-Herodotus
Greek Historian

Pseudo-Herodotus in Peri Politeias (34-37) calls the Macedonians barbarians and distinguishes them from the Greeks.



Plutarch
Ancient Greek Historian
The Age of Alexander

[8] Cassander's fear of Alexander 'In general, we are told, this fear was implanted so deeply and took such hold of Cassander's mind that even many years later, when he had become king of Macedonia and master of Greece, and was walking about one day looking at the sculpture at Delphi, the mere sight of a statue of Alexander struck him with horror, so that he sguddered and trembled in every limb, his head swam, and he could scarcely regain control of himself.' [p.331]



Polybius
Greek Statesman and Historian. [c 200-118 B.C.]
The Rise of the Roman Empire

"I therefore beg you all to be on your guard against this danger, and I appeal especially to King Philip. [Macedonian king Philip V] For you the safest policy, instead of wearing down the Greeks and making them an easy prey for the invader, is to take care of them as you would of your own body, and to protect every province of Greece as you would if it were a part of your own dominions. If you follow this policy, the Greeks will be your friends and your faithful allies in case of attack, and foreigners will be the less inclined to plot against your throne, because they will be discouraged by the loyalty of the Greeks towards you." [p .300] book 5.104



Thrasymachus
On Behalf of the Lariasaeans

"Shell we being Greeks, be slaves to Archelaus, a barbarian?"



Herodotus
Ancient Greek Writer

"I happen to know, and I will demonstrate in a subsequent chapter of this history, that these descendants of Perdiccas are, as they themselves claim, of Greek nationality. This was, moreover, recognized by the managers of the Olympic games, on the occasion when Alexander wished to compete and his Greek competitors tried to exclude him on the ground that foreigners were not allowed to take part. Alexander, however, proved his Argive descent, and so was accepted as a Greek and allowed to enter for the foot-race. He came in equal first." book 5. 22.

First, notice that it is not Herodotus that says that the Macedonian kings were of Greek nationality, but the Macedonian kings as they themselves claim. Now, let us peruse the modern literature and see if we can shed some light on this particular passage from Herodotus which is so 'dear' to all Greek presenters, and one that occupies the central position of their otherwise feeble defense.




Demosthenes
Greek Orator

[3] "While Demosthenes was still in exile, Alexander died in Babylon, and the Greek states combined yet again to form a league against Macedon. Demosthenes attached himself to the Athenian convoys, and threw all his energies into helping them incite the various states to attack the Macedonians and drive them out of Greece." [p.212] Plutarch



Josephus
Jewish Historian

"Greeks and Macedonians that dwelt there" [Antiquities,13.5.11]



Strabo
Roman Historian

"The Thessalians in particular wore long robes, probably because they of all the Greeks lived in the most northerly and coldest region" [11.14.12].


And many more at
http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AncientEvidence.html
    

Edited by Menumorut - 17-Oct-2006 at 11:32

Back to Top
akritas View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Hegemom

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Greek Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
  Quote akritas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 14:04

Originally posted by Sharrukin

1. Because the Macedonians were speaking Greek. The evidence suggest that they were already speaking koine Greek

The koine language originated from 3nd cent B.C. and not 9th-8th  e.t.c as appeared the first texts regarding the Yavana. The term Yavana may well have been first applied by the Indians to the Greeks of various cities of Asia Minor who were settled in the areas contiguous to north-west India. The Yavanas were regarded by the law books and epics as degenerate Ksatriyas and were considered to be of Indian origin, the descendants of Turvasu. .So this reason cannot sustain

Originally posted by Sharrukin

2. Because the Greeks were the majority of colonists near the Indians. We note that the last Macedonian governors of Bactria who revolted and became kings were deposed by Greeks who then became kings. They wouldnt have been able to do so without a considerable Greek support.

It is evident then, from the testimony of the epigraphic records, that Asoka ruled the whole of India except the extreme south, which was in the hands of the Cholas and Pāndyas. The inscriptions refer also to the nations on the borders of the empire. There were in the south, as already mentioned, the Cholas and Pāndyas, whose lands stretched as far as Tamraparni, i.e. Ceylon; while one edict adds two smaller border chiefs, the Keralaputra, i.e. the king of Kerāla or Malabar, and the Satiyaputra, not yet satisfactorily identified, but probably connected with the āndhras. Mentioned along with these independent kingdoms of the south are the Yavana king, Antiyaka, that is the Seleucid Antiochos Theos, whose lands marched with the Maurya empire on the north-west, and the other Greek kings who were his neighbours. On the outer fringe of the empire, but within the king's territory, were the Yonas, the Greeks in the lands ceded by Seleucus to Chandragupta; other Yavanas are named, along with the Gandhāras, apparently as independent; they were probably the rulers of southern Afghanistan and the land west of the upper Indus. The Kambojas, mentioned with them and located north-west of Gandhāra in the Hindu Kush, spoke a semi-Iranian language and were regarded by Hindus as only half-civilised. Another group of frontier peoples living within the king's territory but probably retaining some vestiges of autonomy, belonged to the south. The Greeks were known to the Indies before Alexander campaign. But when encountered them , just called them as Yavana Kings!!!

Originally posted by Sharrukin

3. Because any far-westerner was considered a "Greek". Some peoples classify foreigners by what direction they came. At one time the Persians thought of easterners as all "Turanians" and all westerners as "Romans" regardless of ethnic origin.

Different comparison.

The earliest Indian form known is Yavana, attested in Pāṇinī. It was suggested by Belvalkar that the word Yavana, where -va stands for an original Greek Ϝ, must be at least as old as the ninth century B.C., because the digamma was lost as early as 800 B.C. But, as the Skold(Papers on Pāṇini and Indian Grammar in General, p. 25)  has pointed out, the digamma was dropped at different times in different dialects; in the Ionian dialect it may perhaps have vanished only a short time before the earliest inscriptions, which are of the seventh or perhaps the 8th century B.C.

Your tendency to compare different civilizations in order to prove that Macedonian consider as foreigners   is your big mistake in my opinion.

Originally posted by Sharrukin

As Ive stated in an earlier post, the language of communication and government in the Persian Empire was Aramaic. The Aramaic name for the Greeks was Yavan which they adopted from the Phoenicians at a time when the Ionians were still known as Iavones. Since we have evidence of Aramaic being used in eastern Iran, it does not take much to see that the Indians adopted the Aramaic word, hence their term Yavana. Contrast this with the other Indian term for Greeks, Yona, which was probably adopted from the Persian form Yauna.

My answers in your previous quotes I think cover me as about the Yavan.Just I want to add that Arrian records the tradition of the Indian invasion of Dionysus and it is noteworthy that he attaches more weight to this story than to that of similar exploits of Heracles, since he remarks, 'about Heracles there is not much tradition and he discusses in sober terms whether the Theban Dionysus started from Thebes or from the Lydian Tmolus. According D. R. Bhandarkar, (Carmichael Lectures, 1921,Ancient Indian Numismatics) the numismatic evidence confirms the literary reports and argyments of course. The Athenian 'owls', together with the issues of other Greek cities, which have been found in Afghanistan, must have been brought there by the Greeks both as traders and settlers.( Schlumberger. loc. cit., pp. 46 ff.)

Originally posted by Sharrukin

If, according your evidence, the identification of the Yauna Takabara with the Macedonians is not so clear-cut, than.

Is clear how the Indies and Persians call the Macedonians after the Alexander Campaign.

Originally posted by Sharrukin

The only text that even mentions Yauna Takabara is Dariuss Naqsh-i-Rustam inscription (DNa), dated to about 486 BC. Okay, there seems to be a coherent sequence: Armenia, Cappadocia, Sardes, Ionia, Scythia, Skudra, and Yauna Takabara. Heres the problem: We do not know the extent of either Skudra or Yauna Takabara. Its a given that Skudra probably included Thrace, since the Apadana has a picture of a Skudran which resembles pictures of Thracians by Greek artists. However, we know from descriptions of other Persian provinces, that they were by nature, quite multi-national. The Persian province of Babylonia included not just Babylonians, but Syrians, Phoenicians, Jews, and Philistines, etc. The Persian province of Ionia didnt just include Ionians (and other Greeks) but also included Carians and Lycians. Skudra was probably multinational.

From Greek sources we note that Macedonia had Thracians of its own (Mygdonians, Edonians, Crestonians, Bisaltians, etc.). We note that mythology which places certain mythological figures such as Dionysus and Orpheus, place them in "Thrace" (the region of Olympus and Pieria - Macedonia). The Greek city of Methone was said to have been founded in "Thrace," and the Athenian tributary known as the "Thraceward" cleruchy included coastal Macedonia. Macedonia could have been part of Skudra.

Finally there is the controversy of the name "Skudra" itself. Most Persian province names reflect the name of the most common ethnic group within that province or a land/people description in the Persian language. For the latter, there is no Persian translation, and for the former, there is no equivalent people/land name in Greek sources, except for one place-name - Skydra, located in Macedonia itself, only about 20 miles to the northwest of Aegae. We note that according to Herodotus two seats of Persian government are mentioned, at Doriscus and Eion. According to (7.25.1-2) Persian military provisions were stored at Eion and Doriscus as well as Macedonia. Since we know that governors were based at Eion (7.107.1; 7.113.1; 7.118.1) and Doriscus (7.59.1; 7.105.1; 7.106.2), we can deduce that another was placed in Macedonia at the place mentioned.

Yauna takabara, in this revised scheme may very well be the mainland Greeks themselves. We note that most of the Greeks gave up the "tokens of submission" to Darius (6.48-49).

My responses as about this quote are enough and I want to avoid your thesis as about the Persian policy or the Skudra.I think we will complicated the thinks.Actually is well known that Skudra were the Thracians and if accept any connection with the Skydra why then I call it as Skoudra as pronounce phonetically the "Skudra" in the Greek language ?

Originally posted by Sharrukin

Ive already dealt with the contradictions among the traditions themselves, hence they are not any proof. In order for there to have been the kind of "connection" youve talked about, the historians had to reconcile what "traditions" they received from the Macedonians and place it in the context of Greek history. Since there were points of Greek history that are themselves contradictory chronologically, one or another Greek historian had to subscribe to one of many schemes of Greek chronology to place the Macedonian traditions.

From a realistic archaeological point-of-view, any supposed beginning of the Macedonian monarchy could not have really begun before about 650 BC because the period before that (especially at Vergina) was a period of Illyrian cultural dominance which lasted from about 800 to 650 BC.

I agree that there two hypothesis as about the Macedonian tradition but I cant reject them because:

-Both written from known ancient Greek writers

-Theirs sources were common.

-The primary sources (e.g.Ptolemy Alexander) never found it.

-Caranus is similar with Argead dynasty according the chronology. So in my opinion is closer in the truth. Actually there are a lot of archaeological evidence(Vergina Sun) that connect Macedonians with the Dorians in Sparti region.I mean for craters and figuirines.

-I dont believe in the arbitrary argument or conclusion of the Macedonian propaganda. There is no where any evidence for that.

Originally posted by Sharrukin

Well, lets see. When we read about "barbarians", the context is unmistakably that of "non-Greeks", like, say 95% of the time. When we first read about "barbarian" in any Greek ancient source, it is already used to mean "non-Greek". Unfortunately they date from the 5th century BC, and not before, but only because older sources mainly concerned themselves with either religion, local concerns or mythology. We read that it is used in the sense of what you say in the 4th century BC, hence, that meaning was later in date. Herodotus, himself uses the term exclusively for non-Greeks.

This is your opinion. I prefer to stay in Strabo quote.

Originally posted by Sharrukin

How about to better manage the games because of the increase of events? How about to better manage the games because of an increase in more colonies? How about to better manage an influx of more athletes per place then there were before?

Hellenodikai choosen  equal the number of phylai and not according the management or the increase of the games.


Edited by akritas - 17-Oct-2006 at 15:17
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 14:12
We note that the last Macedonian governors of Bactria who revolted and became kings were deposed by Greeks who then became kings.


So, the Macedonians and greeks were two distinct nations.

Back to Top
Istor the Macedonian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 68
  Quote Istor the Macedonian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 16:03
@Memumorut
Macedonians had always Greek names, toponyms, ways, heroes, gods, dialect and spread Greek Language and Civilization to the World.
Macedonians named after Greek names ALL the cities they built or renamed.
So, we accept them as Greeks. In fact, if ANY modern people do the same things we will accept them as Greek.

The distinction of Macedonians from southern Greeks was ONLY geographic and dialectical.


@Sharroukin
Do you owe me an answer maybe ??
:)



Edited by Istor the Macedonian - 17-Oct-2006 at 16:06
Istor
Macedonian, therefore Greek!
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 16:27
So, we accept them as Greeks. In fact, if ANY modern people do the same things we will accept them as Greek.



The historical science is not a field of acceptions. We have to say from where they came, which language and culture had and how were considered by themselves and by others.


The distinction of Macedonians from southern Greeks was ONLY geographic and dialectical.


This is maybe at ethnographical say, not a historical one.

Anyway, when all the ancient authors are speaking about Macedonians as a different than Greeks people, I think they reflect the common opinion in the time.

Some of the authors are very explicit, I copy again Strabo:
The Thessalians in particular wore long robes, probably because they of all the Greeks lived in the most northerly and coldest region.


Finding if Macedonians were Greeks or were not is not what we should learn but from where and when did they come.
    
    

Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 02:32
Istor the Macedonian
 
Those cases of barbarians' attempts to participate in the games are not cited because they were really often due the the shiningness of the games. I speak about barbarians living amongst Greeks, who were attracted by Greekness.
 
What do you mean by "shiningness"? If by that you mean the the overall public reverance of the Games then that does not explain the many examples of athletes being caught cheating and judged.   You got to do better than that.

The source we have is the word hellanodikai. At the beginning those men were named agoono8etai that is rulers of the games, yet soon they were named hellanodikai, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. The source is also that passage of Herodotus about Alexander the first. Hellanodikai approved his Greekness. The source is the fact that "Greek judges" apparently had to test people's Greekness in order not to be "barbarians' judges". (Modern Greeks say agoonodikai !!)
 
There is nothing in the ancient sources to suggest that agonothetai was the earlier name for the hellenodikai.  The only thing that is evident is that the two terms were synonyms, but, that's it.

No. Before Herodotus, Greeks were generally illiterate people and proof for this is Herodotus history itself. If one reads Herodotus and Thucydides histories he will see the progress made in Greek minds in 50 years. Hecateus knew about Macedonians but very few Greeks knew Hecateus.
 
Greece was literate (with the alphabet) since about 800 BC (earliest known Greek alphabetic inscription, c. 775 BC).  Herodotus finished his History by about 430 BC.  Therefore Greeks knew literacy for almost 400 years!!! 

When southern Greeks settled Chalkidike and other places of "Macedonia" ( 7 and 6c BC) there were no Macedonians at all there! The regions were inhabited mainly by Thracians. Thucydides wrote about this.
 
Where did Thucydides write about this?

Hesiod was almost unknown to the Greeks in respect of Homer. The unifying element of Greeks was for about 5 centuries Homer's songs-poems. All Greek writers call Homer not by name but as "the poet". So, Homer was a must for Greeks and since he wrote makednees for RYTHM reasons and Herodotus had to follow him while the right word was makedanos (-ees). "dn" is not Greek sound (especially Dorian!!).
 
I'm sorry, but Hesiod was just as well known as Homer, and he already knew the Macedonians.  What is also not consistent is that Homer is talking about a "poplar tree" (Odyssey 7.106), not a group of people as Herodotus was talking about.

[quote]Again, did Alexander exclude Makednoi when he said that he was "King of Macedonians"? Be brave and answer me. 
 
Alexander does not say that he is "king of the Makednoi".  He ways that he is "king of the Makedonon".   He also calls himself the "Greek ruler of Macedonia".  Why does he even say "Greek"?  From a skeptic's point-of-view such a phasing is simply unnecessary unless he was trying to distinguish himself from the rest of Macedonia.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 07:16
Originally posted by Sharrukin

Where did Thucydides write about this?
I assume he refers to Peloponnesian War, IV, 109:
http://classicpersuasion.org/pw/thucydides/thucydides-passages.php?pleaseget=4.106-110
 
 
I don't who Pelasgians/Tyrrhenians might be but the Bisaltians, the Crestonians, the Edonians I've seen them referred (rightfully or not) as Thracian tribes.
 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 18-Oct-2006 at 07:18
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 04:48
logan 
Here's the clarification.  There is nothing to indicate that the Makednians even inhabited Macedonia.  All that is said is that they inhabited the Pindus.  The Pindus do indeed extend into Macedonia, but if we take their route, we find that the region the Dorians inhabited before the Pindus (i.e. the region of Histiaiotis) was a region adjacent to the Pindus in Thessaly.  Anyone who knows geography knows that the Pindus Mts. were the western border of Thessaly.  When they abandoned the Pindus, they made their way into central Greece.  Again, for anyone who knows geography, the southern tip of the Pindus range ends near central Greece, where Doris was


Sorry but youve mixed the accounts. The first account in 1.56 makes reference to Dorians and Ionians not Makedonians. Do take a minute to re-read the text.

These races, Ionian and Dorian, were the foremost in ancient time, the first a Pelasgian and the second a Hellenic people. The Pelasgian race has never yet left its home; the Hellenic has wandered often and far. [3] For in the days of king Deucalion1 it inhabited the land of Phthia, then the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus, in the time of Dorus son of Hellen; driven from this Histiaean country by the Cadmeans, it settled about Pindus in the territory called Macedonian; from there again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where it took the name of Dorian
 
At first what is being talked about (the "it") is the "Hellenic", not the Pelasgian.  But in the end it is talking about Dorians "a Hellenic people".  Remember the very end where "it took the name Dorian."  akritas and myself had already agreed on this point.  We know that when this Greek group left Phthia, we can confidently say that that they were Dorian (or "proto-Dorians" as some might say).  Hence, the migration route mentioned illustrates Herodotus's point that "the Hellenic has often wandered often and far,".  It is talking about the Dorians, not Ionians.   The group or groups left in Phthia retained the name "Hellenes" or perhaps already any of the other major Greek tribal names such as Aeolians, since we know from mythology, the "sons of Aeolus" from Phthia spread far and wide claiming kingship in other parts of Greece.  

The very reference to Deukalion, indicates that we are talking about population movements that took place during or prior to the Mycenean era (depending on source of datation of the deluge).
 
The "datation" indicates Mycenaean times.  No problem there.
 
So based on our knowledge (according to Herodotus) of Perdiccas being the first to begin the Macedonian legacy we shouldnt even take this part of the text into account since it obviously pre-dates Perdiccas and the Makedones by several centuries.
 
So far, so good.  Yes, the last event recorded is the Makednian migration to the Peloponnese "where they took the name of Dorian".  Hence, we are talking about an event at the end of the Mycenaean period.

The account that is of some value to the discussion is that in 8.137-39.
Taking into consideration this account and adding the factor geography which you mentioned. We can safely say that we know the exact location that the three brothers settled in the 8th century.
 
7th century.

As Herodotus tells us this was in the town named Lebaea.
"they crossed over into the highlands of Macedonia till they came to the town Lebaea"
 
Today Lebaea is named Apidia, a little village in the prefecture of Voios situated on Mt. Voios at an altitude of some 800m. Vios is the western part of the municipality of Kozani and actually separates the municipalities of Grevena and Kastoria. Which means it is placed in Makedonia.
 
Now this is interesting.  None of my up-to-date sources of information stated that the location of Lebaea was found.   Based upon the information you provided, the general region of Lebaea comprehended the ancient region of Elimea (at least on two of my maps).  Please give me your source for its discovery.  Thanks.

If we continue with the text we find that they leave Lebaea and move NE, pass the river Aliakmon and then settle in the prefecture of Emathia. The specific position is the most logical conclusion since its above the river and he mentions that above the region "rises the mountain called Bermius", not to mention that we fall directly upon the site of Vergina (Aigai)


I can at least agree that the brothers crossed the Haliacmon and settled upon the site of Vergina (Aigai).  So, here's where I don't comprehend your objection:  Regardless as to how we view the Makednian (or proto-Dorian) migration, we seem to be in agreement that the Makednian migration and the migration of the three brothers are different both geographically and temporally.  One does not have a relation to the other.  I don't understand where you are taking this, since the later details are really not in debate.
We don't know whether it was first a regional term or first an ethnic term.  We only know that ethnic terms tend to become regional terms (and sometimes visa versa).  The question then becomes, why did the Dorians change their name to Makednians when they were in the Pindus Mts.?  I've given a brief answer, that since they inhabited the mountains they were given the name Makednians by virtue of being in the "heights" overlooking the lands such as Thessaly and central Greece.  Hence, they were Makednians, "highlanders".


Now, concerning the regional name "Macedonia".  It must pointed out that the region of Macedonia was at first comprehended merely the region of the Macedonian tribes which did not extend to the the Pindus Mts. until a later date.  If we were to take Thucydides description of the regions of the "Macedonians by blood" as well as the domain of the Temenid kings of Aegae, the entirety of Macedonian land fall short of the region of the Pindus, which according to Strabo's geography was inhabited by "Epeirote" tribes.  Macedonia did not extend to the Pindus Mts. until the conquests of Philip of Macedonia.


I find your suggestion on the name plausible, then again, it may very well derive from the region itself, since it is a highly mountainous region. But as Ive said I disagree on the notion that all Dorians were defined by the term in question and the reference to Pindus, which they did not settle on, well at least not in the first movements into the region.
 
Okay, here's where I need understanding on your position:
 
1. You say that not all "Dorians" were defined by the term in question, presumably "Makednian".  Yet, Herodotus plots the migratory course of the Makednians from the Pindus to Dryopis and then to the Peloponnese where they took the name "Dorian".  Is it then, your position that only the Dorians of the Peloponnese can be rightly called "Dorians"?  If this is the case, what about the people of Doris/Dryopis?
 
2.  You say that the Dorians did not settle the Pindus (at least that is what I'm understanding).  If the Makednians which are explicitly stated to have gotten their name when they settled the Pindus and who moved on to Dryopis/Dorus are not the ancestors of the Dorians, then, in your opinion, who were they?

As for Thucydides, yes it seems that only the region under Perdiccas control was titled as such but while he does not clarify if the term was originally regional or tribal, the reference to the other pure blooded Makedonians by other tribal names, most probably indicates the regional and not tribal origin of the term.


Okay, so, in your opinion, the region was the "Highland" before there were "highlanders"?

In our zeal to gain an understanding of a certain passage in another language, sometimes we get too specific in our exegetical methods, and fail to get the whole picture, the context if you will.  "te kai" if used by itself can mean a "distinction" as you say, but if used with the rest of the thought, it can have an "inclusive" meaning such as my example of the man.  We can appreciate this phrase's meaning when it is used with the term "ethnos".  Remember, they did not change their name from Makednian to Dorian until they reached the Peloponnese.  Hence they were Makednians when they were in Doris.  Hence when Herodotus was saying that they were of "Dorian and Makednian stock" he was saying that they were Dorians of the Peloponnese and Doris.  Macedonians are nowhere in evidence.



The name change as noted above is wrong since the quote does not mention Makedonians but Dorians and we have no indication that they bore the name prior to their establishment in the region.
 
Again, I'm failing to understand you.
 
1.  When you say that the name change is wrong, are you saying that you don't believe that Makednians became Dorians?
 
2.  I would agree that Macedonians are not mentioned.  Like I said "Macedonians are nowhere in evidence".   But, I fail to see how you consider such a connection justification for seeing the name change as wrong.

As for the language, I do speak it so its not foreign to me but since my statement isnt adequate, Ill quote perseus.tufts.

II. te . . kai . . , or te kai . . , both . . and . . , where te points forward to kai, and usu. need not be translated, e.g. Atreids te anax andrn kai dios Achilleus Il.1.7 ; ei d homou polemos te damai kai loimos Achaious ib.61; deilos te kai outidanos kaleoimn ib. 293; zon te kai artemea 7.308 , cf. 327,338, al.; ts te gs eouss epitdes kai tn potamn eontn sphi summachn Hdt.4.47 ; bouletai te kai epistatai Th.2.35 ; ho phus te kai trapheis Pl.R.396c ; basin te gar palin tn autn echousi tn ZB kai . . Euc.1.47 ; sts. the elements joined by te . . kai . . are joined in order to be compared or contrasted rather than simply joined, kakistos nun te kai palai dokei S.Ant. 181 ; mesambri te esti kai to karta ginetai psuchron Hdt.4.181 ; etuchon te hustatai exanachtheisai kai ks kateidon Id.7.194 ; epausato te ho anemos kai to kuma estrto ib.193; tauta . . nun te kai tote Ar.Av. 24 ; chris to t' eipein polla kai ta kairia S.OC808 ; hoson to t' archein kai to douleuein dicha A.Pr.927 ; sts. (like te . . te) even used of alternatives, diandicha mermrixen, hippous te strepsai kai enantibion machesasthai Il.8.168 ; en dikai te kai para dikan Pi.O.2.16 ; theou te . . thelontos kai m thelontos A.Th.427 ; peisas te . . kai m tuchn Th.3.42 :--on hoi te alloi kai . . , e.g. tois te allois hapasi kai Lakedaimoniois Isoc.12.249 , and alls te kai . . , v. allos 11.6, alls 1.3

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?layout.refembed=2&layout.refdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0125&layout.refcit=book%3D8%3Achapter%3D43%3Asection%3D1&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%23102753&layout.reflookup=te&layout.reflang=greek&layout.refwordcount=3&layout.refabo=Perseus%3Aabo%3Atlg%2C0016%2C001


As you can see the use of te kai indicates the distinction between the two terms exactly as seen in the Herakles - Malian quote I used as an example.
 
Okay, let's assume that "Makednian" and "Dorian" describe "different" groups under one ethnos.  We have a list of city-states supplying ships (Lacedaemon/Sparta, Corinth, Sicyon, Epidaurus, and Troezen) which are said to be both.  In all other descriptions, these cities are said to be simply "Dorian".  The "two groups" are said to "had last come from Erineus and Pindus and the Dryopian region."  This comprehends the territory of Doris.  Tyrtaeus (c. 650 BC), the poet, our earliest source for the "Dorian migration", mentioned that the Heracleidae came from Erineus to the Peloponnese.  I cannot help but to notice that no other ancient author mentions Makednians in the Peloponnese (or in any other place), only Dorians, as if the term Makednian became a specialized term for Dorians.  Makednians came "from Erineus......"  From my point of view Dorians were Makednians.  If you don't think that Dorians and Makednians are not mutually exclusive terms, than where were the Makednians in the historic period?



 
 
 

The material that Hoffman was studying (1906) was either of the same date of, or more commonly later than the Pella curse tablet.   Hence, while we can postulate several generations of the writers of these short Greek inscriptions (no matter what dialect was used) it only indicates a Greek presence other than Ionic.  Again, in the fifth century we document "Greeks inhabiting the land [of Macedonia]" (Thucydides, 4.124.1), without any indication of origin.  If they were "Aeolians" then we have a source of origin from perhaps Thessaly where an Aeolic dialect was spoken. 
 


Possible but problematic since we have no account nor indications of colonization by Thessalians which could explain such an influence.
 
That is true, but we need to bare in mind that Thessalians were just one group that settled Thessaly.  Mythology speaks of other groups such as the Perrhaebi which came from the region of Dodona into northern Thessaly.  It is feasable that groups, speaking Aeolic dialects from the region of Thessaly may have migrated into Macedonia.  The problem is that lately what had been thought of as "Aeolic" inscriptions have been requestioned in the light of the Pella curse tablet.  The current thinking is that those inscriptions are not Aeolic at all but probably Northwest Greek.  At this point we only have the explicit statement by Thucydides that "Greeks inhabited the land" (4.124.1).
 

The Olympics was simply the earliest indicator of a Greek self-identity.  The Thessalians were members of other pan-Hellenic religious and military leagues such as in the Lelantine War (c. 700 BC) and the Amphictiony of Anthela which they soon dominated by about 600 BC. 

The Lelantine war is far from being able to be described as a pan-Hellenic event, its much closer to a local event with some minor alliances with neighbouring cities. But none of the mainland cities had participated..
 
Thucydides wrote:
 
"[2] Wars by land there were none, none at least by which power was acquired; we have the usual border contests, but of distant expeditions with conquest for object we hear nothing among the Hellenes. There was no union of subject cities round a great state, no spontaneous combination of equals for confederate expeditions; what fighting there was consisted merely of local warfare between rival neighbors. [3] The nearest approach to a coalition took place in the old war between Chalcis and Eretria; this was a quarrel in which the rest of the Hellenic name did to some extent take sides."
 
The Thessalians were explicitly stated to have participated, according to one of Plutarch's Lives
 
Oh, and another thing.  I did a review of the list of Olympic victors and indeed, there were Thessalian victors prior to your evidence.  We have victors from Thessalian cities for the years 648 and 556 BC.  Hence, from the beginning of the Games to the first Thessalian victors, only 128 years past.
 
 
Now as for the Amphyctionic League, the problem is that the members arent defined as city-states, but as tribes. This is clear in Aeschines On the False Embassy 2.116.1 :
To prove that they were Amphictyonic cities and thus protected by the oaths, I enumerated twelve tribes which shared the shrine: the Thessalians, Boeotians (not the Thebans only), Dorians, Ionians, Perrhaebi, Magnetes, Dolopians, Locrians, Oetaeans, Phthiotians, Malians, and Phocians. And I showed that each of these tribes has an equal vote, the greatest equal to the least: that the delegate from Dorion and Cytinion has equal authority with the Lacedaemonian delegates, for each tribe casts two votes; again, that of the Ionian delegates those from Eretria and Priene have equal authority with those from Athens and the rest in the same way.
 
It didn't matter whether they were city-states or tribes.  The point was that it was a pan-Hellenic league.

. beside this, there is also the problem in date. The league was founded prior to the conquest of Perdiccas


Perhaps, but why is this even a problem?  There is no Macedonian representative until the reign of Philip, about 300 years after the foundation of the Temenid kingdom.
 
Of all the proof texts I've read, the word "dialect" is not even in evidence.
 
"It was a pleasure merely to hear the sound of her voice, with which, like an instrument of many strings, she could pass from one language to another; so that there were few of the barbarian nations that she answered by an interpreter; to most of them she spoke herself, as to the Ethiopians, Troglodytes, Hebrews, Arabians, Syrians, Medes, Parthians, and many others, whose language she had learnt; which was all the more surprising because most of the kings, her predecessors, scarcely gave themselves the trouble to acquire the Egyptian tongue, and several of them quite abandoned the Macedonian."
http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/antony.html[/url]
 
I have another similar quote from a book.  Okay, let's table this quote until we can get a Greek text, for proofreading.  Agreed?


Heres the text in Hellinic :

[4] κέντρον. ἡδονὴ δὲ καὶ φθεγγομένης ἐπῆν τῷ ἤχῳ· καὶ τὴν γλῶτταν ὥσπερ ὄργανόν τι πολύχορδον εὐπετῶς τρέπουσα καθ' ἣν βούλοιτο διάλεκτον, ὀλίγοις παντάπασι δι' ἑρμηνέως ἐνετύγχανε βαρβάροις, τοῖς δὲ πλείστοις αὐτὴ δι' αὑτῆς ἀπεδίδου τὰς ἀποκρίσεις, οἷον Αἰθίοψι Τρωγλοδύταις Ἑβραίοις Ἄραψι Σύροις Μήδοις Παρθυαίοις. [5] πολλῶν δὲ λέγεται καὶ ἄλλων ἐκμαθεῖν γλώττας, τῶν πρὸ αὐτῆς βασιλέων οὐδὲ τὴν Αἰγυπτίαν ἀνασχομένων παραλαβεῖν διάλεκτον, ἐνίων δὲ καὶ τὸ μακεδονίζειν ἐκλιπόντων.

http://www.mikrosapoplous.gr/anc_texts/texts_plut.html

 hope this clear it.
 
Indeed it does.  As Istor and I had discussed in another thread, there is no specific word for "dialect" in Greek.  Instead we have synonyms "glossa" and "dialectos" which can be translated as "language", "speech", and "dialect", depending on context.  Here "dialektos" is in a position where both Egyptian and Macedonian can be described as "dialektos", hence, "dialect" as a meaning is excluded. 
 

Hmmmph. :)  On the surface this seems to be a fair question.  You are right, there is no account about any of the specifics you've mentioned.  However, if Alexander followed Olympian rules, you would have known that Olympic athletes had to be training in Olympia for a whole month before the start of the games
 
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Olympics/faq6.html
 
and thus, it was inevitable that his fellow athletes would have had some familiarity with him.  They were social events as well, you know.  When it was time for competition, they would have already known that he was "Macedonian".  He was immediately rejected by his fellow athletes as a "barbarian". 
 


Well this is a recorded fact, but the problem is that the first account comes from Pindaros a contemporary of Alexander I (well he actually outlived him) .
So we cant say beyond doubt that this rule existed during the event in question, especially since Pausanias describes continuous alterations in the gamesand their rules  because they had forgotten the old traditions. (5.8-10)
 
Yet this particular rule is not even mentioned in the text, specified, as one of the "alterations".

Then again, even if the rule was applied during the event. Philostratus in his Apollonius Tyaneus 6 tells us that the actual reason for calling them in a whole month prior to the events was to test their abilities, and place them in categories depending on these very abilities.
 
This will still leave enough time for the other athletes to familiarize themselves with Alexander.
 
Now, if we add the account of Pausanias (6.13) of them running in 4 series we see that the month required was to judge their physical abilities, since the origin issue must have been clarified since day one.
 
The operative phrase is "must have been". See below.

[quote]Im sure youll agree that that examining a runner for a whole month and only during the day of the race look into the origin issue its simply impractical.

 
Not unless all the athletes saw something "foreign" in one of their own number, in which case it was not a priority for the judges to examine them in the beginning, depending instead on their citizenship of their Greek city.. Remember, Alexander was "examined" after the accusation.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 16>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.235 seconds.