Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Alexander did not care about Helenism nor Helenization |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12345 7> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hellinas 
Knight 
Joined: 20-Dec-2004 Location: Greece Online Status: Offline Posts: 85 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Alexander did not care about Helenism nor HelenizationPosted: 20-Dec-2004 at 16:36 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What I find at least sick is that everyone wants to connect their non-existance to the greatness of Hellas. Sharrukin It's tome to open up our history books again. Haven't you ever heard of Alexander I? Herodotus: Thucydides: But then again none of the following can be Hellinic people either The Peloponnesians that were with the fleet were ... the Lacedaimonians, ... the Corinthians, ... the Sicyonians, ... the Epidaurians, ... the Troezenians, ... the people of Hermione there; all these, except the people of Hermione, were of Dorian and Macedonian stock and had last come from Erineus and Pindus and the Dryopian region." I also noticed that even though almost everyone quotes Herodotus not one of you know of this: In Herodotus Book I, 56 >> There is no way to determine if the Macedonian was speaking a dialect of Greek, or a foreign language and trying to speak in broken Attic.. I can easily say, so a Macedonian is clumsy with the Attic dialect.<< Even today when speaking modern Hellinic, the Atheneans make fun of the Macedonian way of speech. They tend to give emphasis on the L. All archeologic finds are enough to prove that they spoke nothing but the Hellinic language. That alone proves that the Macedonians were not a Hellinized group of people, but, they were an original Hellinic tribe. What leads us to that conclusion, is that if they where somehow hellenized, then that must have been caused by the colonies that other Greek states had on Macedonia's coasts, and which were Ionian-speaking. So, if they were Hellinized,then the Greek words in that "language" should have been produced by the "hellenization" and that means that they were supposed to be of the Ionian dialect, which they are not! >> Why don't we have evidence of Greek script from such an early period in this region? So, just because they were Hellenized somewhere in the 6th century doesn't mean that there were be evidence of inscriptions of Hellenized names, or Greek inscriptions for that matter. << Funny you speak of blasphemy >>About 800 BC the Illyrian Glasinac Culture expanded from the east and established itself in the greater part of Macedonia including Vergina, the ancient Aegae, where the Macedonian royal house was said to have been established. Macedonia remained Illyrian in culture until about 650 BC. << Where you get your info is beyond me. The site previously provided proves this to be false and if that isn't enough, please explain how is it possible for the Hellines to have colonized Italy, Black Sea................and Illyria and had totally missed Macedonia that was right next to them? Some more info: Another interesting fact, is our knoledge of Macedonians taking part in the Olympics, we know for a fact that only Hellines were allowed to do so, even when conquered by the Romans and after they demanded to participate in the Olympics, they were introduced to a kind of "AGON" that was totally different to the original Olympics and preformed on a totally different date. And finally, if someone would strive to prove the non Hellinic origin of the Macedonians that would be the FYROMians, for obvious reasons.
So let us see what Fyromian scholars have said/wrote on this topic: Here is a collection of excerpts from FYROMian academic literature that confirm the Greek ethnicity of ancient Macedonians 1)'We are not to be amazed that in the archaeological material of Pelagonia we have a rarely great wealth of reflections of all pronounced cultural events in the relations between middle-Danubian and Graeco-Aegean world' Mikulcic,Ivan "Pelagonija",Skopje,1966,pp.2 'In a such great chronological distance in the life of ancient Pelagonia two stages are visible: development and existence in the frames of Hellenic culture and later the Roman one' Ibid.,pp.4 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- 2)'The lower part of Vardar is certainly the area south of Demir-Kapija gorge that entered Hellenic cultural sphere very early and already before 600 b.c. the material culture is thoroughly Hellenised.' "The Valley of Vardar in Ist millennium b.c" ("???????? ?? ??pd?p ? ?p??? ??e??s ?.?.e.") ,Skopje,1982,pp.2 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- 3)'Even in the last decades of 5th century stabilization in all spheres of social life is established. As first sign of the new time import from Graeco-Macedonian south appeared as well as fortified settlements that later grew into urban centers with character of economic and religious nuclei of the region' "Guide to the archaeological exhibition"("??d?? ??? ?p?e???????? ?????a?"),Skopje,1996,pp.54 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- 4)'For example,Pelagonia,which is naturally oriented to the South, was the first to be subjected to Greek influence, together with the lower part of Vardar' "Archaeologic Map of the Republic of Macedonia"("?p?e?????? ??? ?? ?e?sa???? ???ed?????"),Skopje,1996,pp.71 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- 5)'From the mountains of Epirus Dorian Makednoi (Macedonians) made their advance towards Macedonia, conquering the native tribes who latter gained new, Hellenistic culture and after that are politically organized into a powerful state' "The Art in Macedonia"("Se?????? ? ???ed?????"),Skopje,1984 pp.26 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- 6)'Paeonians,a people who during the first millennia b.c inhabited border area between the three great paleobalkanic peoples-Illyrians, Thracians and Hellenes' Veljanovska,Fanica "An Attempt at Anthropological Definition of the Paeonians"("?a?d ?? ???p???????? det???p??e ?? ?????f??e"),Skopje,1994 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- 7)'...Certain proto-populations occupying distinct areas of the Balkans are to be distinguished on territories of the cultural groups :in western part of the Balkans the proto-Illyrians, in the east the proto Thracians, in the south the Hellenes, in the northern part of the Balkans the proto Daco-Mysians and in the southwest of the Central Balkans the proto Bryges.' "Bryges on the central Balkans in the 2nd and 1st millennium b.c."("?p????e ?? fe??p?????? ?????? ? ??p??? ? ?p??? ??e??s ?.?.e.") (summary) "Arheologija" No 1,Skopje 1995 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- 'With the end of Iron Age III, i.e. with the total Hellenisation of material culture,the prehistory of Macedonia ends.' Sanev,Vojislav "Prehistory of S.R. Macedonia"("?p?????p??? ?? ?.?. ???ed?????"),Skopje 1977,pp.13 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- 9)"The Art of Antiquity left in the region of Ohrid a great number of traces of its own presence.Illyrian forts imported goods from Greek centers and imitated them in a modest fashion. Political advancement of the Macedonians and their domination enabled cultural influx that manifested itself through products of crafts and alphabet. From the times of Phillip II deeper advances in the area of Lychnidos are attested.Cultural influences of the Graeco-Macedonian world are more present.Rich Hellenistic culture arrived at Illyrian soil" "Ohrid" by Vera Bitrakova-Grozdanova ,in:"The Art in Macedonia"("Se?????? ? ???ed?????") ,Skopje 1984, pp.85 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- 10)"With the increase of influences from developed cultured south and with the acceptation of Hellenic influences over Paeonia,which already in the V and IV centuries b.c.have committed great changes in the Paeonian culture, usage of Greek Pantheon was also accepted" Petrova,Eleonora "Cults and symbolism of Paeonian tribes compared with the Illyrian and Thracian ones"("?s???? ? ??a?????? ??? ?????????e ??e??? ???pede? ?? ???p????e ? ?p????????e") in: "Macedoniae Acta Archeologica",Skopje No.13,pp.129 "Having the central position in this part of the Balkans,Paeonia,apart from receiving influences from the Hellenic south, wasn't an exception with regard to influences from Illyrian and Thracian sphere" Ibid.,pp.134 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- 11)"Greek epigraphic monuments created before definitive Roman domination of our area are to be found in modest quantity" Bitrakova Grozdanova,Vera "Hellenistic Monuments in S.R.Macedonia"("?e?e???????? ???e??f? ? ?.?.???ed?????"),Skopje,1987,pp. 130 "Study of the inscriptions speaks about epigraphic characteristics of the neighboring Macedonian-Hellenic world" Ibidem. pp.103 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- 12)"During the early arhaic period at the Macedonian territory,the Dorian tribal groups came across over the Pindos mountain,to the area of today's North-Western Greece and parts of the southern Republic of Macedonia.They established several early principalities partially by chasing away the local Paeonian tribes.Those tribal groups were the ancient Macedonians" "Macedonian Heritage"("???ed????? ????ed???"),No 1,july 1996,pp.5 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- 13)"The northern periphery of Greek world, inhabited with ancient Macedonians and other peoples and tribes, wasn't developed for democracy as the most developed social system at that time" Mikulcic,Ivan "Ancient towns in the Republic of Macedonia"("????????e ?p?d?? ? ?e?sa???? ???ed?????"),Skopje,1999,pp.9 "Our overview was exposed chronologically. The first part embraces the early antiquity in our country, the period from 5th century b.c. up to the middle 3rd century b.c.. Throughout this centuries one can follow the Hellenic spirit and the creation of the Hellenic civilization in our areas, which left a basic imprint on the material artifacts" Ibidem. pp.10-11 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- 14)"The quantitative ceramic material used to be produced with the usual process including the labor of persons .Partly because of that, partly because of the traditions that had taken roots into our soil, which with centuries before that used to be watered with Hellenic spirit and Hellenistic way of life ,the use of the building ceramics had been brought to minimum" Lilcic,Viktor "Building ceramics in the Republic of Macedonia during the Roman Period  cupi,Stobi,Heraclea Lynkestis,Styberra"("Gp?de??? ?ep???? ? ?e?sa???? ???ed????? ?? pee ?? p?????? ?ep??d-??s??,???a?,?ep???e?????e????,???aep?"), Skopje,1996,pp.120 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- 15)"In any case during the classical and Hellenistic periods and especially in the 4th and 3rd centuries b.c. we can no longer speak of Paeonian cult in the Peaonian region ,but of cults adopted by the entire Hellenic civilization, where through the material culture, elements of spiritual life from developed south were adopted. This was followed by the strenghtening of the autochthonous elements above all, the solar cult. Since Paeonians were centrally located in this region of the Balkans,they were influenced from the Hellenic south but they also couldn't avoid the influences from the Illyrian and Thracian sphere" Petrova,Eleonora "The cults, symbolism and Deities in Paeonian and neighboring regions" in: "Macedonia and the neighboring regions from 3rd to1st millennium b.c.-Papers presented at the international symposium in Struga-1997",Skopje,1999,pp.118 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
vagabond
Colonel 
Joined: 07-Aug-2004 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 524 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Dec-2004 at 11:27 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There's some very good discussion going on here - but there is also some borderline anti-social behavior. Let's please keep the comments directed toward the subject and not the poster. There's no reason to make derogatory coments about anyone whether you agree with them or not. While the entire conversation skirts the edges of the issue - let us also please not allow this discussion devolve into a contemporary political discussion. The contemporary Greek - FYROM (discussion? debate? argument?) is one that has already been banned on many history forums. If we stay on topic and maintain a polite tone, that won't have to happen here. Thanks everyone for your great contributions to the discussion, and your cooperation. Back to Alexander. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the time of your life, live - so that in that wonderous time you shall not add to the misery and sorrow of the world, but shall smile to the infinite delight and mystery of it. (Saroyan)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hellinas
Knight
Joined: 20-Dec-2004 Location: Greece Online Status: Offline Posts: 85 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Dec-2004 at 12:43 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
>>comments directed toward the subject and not the poster/The contemporary Greek - FYROM (discussion? debate? argument?) << I had no intention of insulting anyone in specific, it was a general comment. Nor bringing up such a discussion, I was merely pointing out that even some of their renowned scholars do agree that the Macedonians were a Hellinic people despite the obvious reasons not to. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain 
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jan-2005 at 19:04 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello everyone. Sorry to have "abandoned" this thread (and the entire Forum, for that matter). I had been on vacation as well as being sick. It is this blasted virus I've been fighting for weeks, and now its lodged in my throat. I'm am, however, well enough to write. To Romano Nero
Romano, I have not been upset. Frustrated was more like it. I felt that what Ive written was mostly misunderstood. After reading the last part of my last post, I am rather embarrassed as to how strong the language was. As you say, you ain't Greek and I ain't "Macedonian". I can see why "do your research" would sound rude in the strong language I used. I dont know how many times Ive been told such, and just take it with a grin.
I appreciate your effort. Agendas only get in the way of credibility. Scholars on both sides of the question take great pains to protect their reputations and lament when their work is taken to further the agendas of others.
The problem is with the interpretation of the "valid data". We may look at the same data and draw different conclusions, especially when we consider other data which we both consider pressing. Thus, what you consider "obvious" truth isnt necessarily considered such, by the other side. In the same token, I have the same feeling with what I consider valid data I bring to the discussion. I feel that it is either ignored or trivialized. The real "devil" in establishing the "truth" is in the details.
Yes, cultures tend to be conservative, but in the case of Macedonia itself, there has been a shift in culture several times as observed in the archaeological record. Hellenic culture doesnt appear until quite late and the epigraphy of the "names" dont appear until even later. If the archaeological record shows a long period of non-Greek traditions predominating Macedonia prior to the adoption of the Greek culture of the south, doesnt that show that there was a period of Hellenization?
But thats just it. We are not talking "decades" but rather the space of hundreds of years, to the time of most of the evidence of Greek names in the epigraphy of the region (4th century BC) . During this time, not only is there a transformation of the material culture, but also an eclectic assortment of Greek views of the Macedonians. Thucydides himself even hints at some form of ethnic turmoil during this time when the Macedonian royal house began its conquest of eastern Macedonia all the way to the Axios and beyond. From the internal evidence from Herodotus, the Greek athletes were not impressed that a Macedonian prince bore a Greek name, but wrote him off as a "barbarian". This would suggest that many Greeks viewed them as barbarians and that it was common knowledge amongst the Greeks that "foreigners" had Greek names. Herodotus took pains to "demonstrate" that at least the Macedonian royal house was Greek. This itself suggests that he was conscious that many of his readers still clung to the idea that the Macedonians were barbarians in the time of the writing of his history. A later contemporary of his, Thrasymachus, still referred to the Macedonian king as a "barbarian", not to mention the later Demosthenes.
Neither I nor Borza make that suggestion. Macedonia had always been outside of Greek culture from an even earlier period. For instance, the evidence of Mycenaean (and by extension, Helladic) culture only exists as far northeast as the west side of Mt. Olympus. Beyond this, the literature does mention Mycenaean artefacts, but they are viewed as either "imports" or as "imitations". About 1200 BC elements of the central European Lausitz Tumulus Culture made their appearance in the region of the classical Brygians and took root. From about 1150 to about 800 BC the Brygian Culture, made its home in Macedonia, with Vergina as a major center. Herodotus writes of a time of Brygian/Phrygian domination of Macedonia where he already places the Macedonians. Therefore the suggestion isnt that the Macedonians had "Illyrian" roots but rather that they had a long history of culture of non-Greek origin. It is perhaps best to say that they had adopted Illyrian culture, not were "rooted" in Illyrian culture.
But in fact they werent so numerous. Their man power was so below that of the Greek states that they couldnt take final possession of the Greek colonies in their midst until the time of Philip, and they werent even a power of significance until the time of the same. Thucydides describes the core of the Macedonian military in the later 5th century as being "nearly 1,000". The Thracians under the rule of the Odrysian kings were considered a threat to the Macedonians and made inroads into Macedonia without opposition. The Illyrians even drove a Macedonian king to flee the country. This is not to even mention that the Chalcidians under the Olynthians gained possession of Pella itself!!! The land under the direct rule of the early Argead kings was really not that large, and even they had only a loose hold over the subordinate Macedonian kings of southeastern Macedonia. And no, not just because of those Greek colonies. Macedonia was virtually surrounded by Greeks except due north and northwest. In the south was Thessaly, in the east Epirus, and in the northeast, Chalcidice. The Aegean shore of Macedonia was virtually a Greek sea. Thucydides mention Greeks "living" in Macedonia proper itself who made up a component of the Macedonian kings army. It would have been inevitable that Hellenization would have taken place. This is an observable fact that the culture possessing most of the local economic advantages "assimilates"for the most part, the culture which doesnt irregardless of the size of the culture with the economic disadvantage. In order to gain a foothold into the economy of the domineering culture, the leaders of the alien culture will learn the culture and language those who hold the resources. A period of bilingualism occurs and not only will they acquire "Greek names" but also make the language of their culture, the majority one. Macedonia did not become sufficiently economically powerful enough to maintain a powerful army until the 4th century BC. Before that it had to rely on alliances with the Greeks to maintain its own self interests. A similar process occurred in southeastern Africa. From about the 3rd century AD, an economic bloc formed in which one language became the predominant language. Swahili became not only the language of trade in this region, but also the language of politics. Despite the myriad of languages spoken in this region, all natives learned Swahili. Swahili remained the predominant language of that civilization right up to the late 19th century. An interesting phenomenon was observed by an anthropologist by the name of Frederik Barth in regards to tribes on the Afghan-Pakistani border. The observed tribes were the Pathans and the Baluchis. The Pathans had a much larger population, were wealthier, better armed, and had a better military reputation then the Baluchis. Yet, the Baluchis were linguistically assimilating the Pathans. His explanation was that Baluchi society allowed for easy absorption of groups of Pathans which offered opportunities for advancement in Baluchi society, but which was non-existent in Pathan society. Now add to this the efforts of the Macedonian royal house. If they werent originally Greek, then they most certainly became pro-Hellenic. Thucydides writes of the royal house as pushing tribes out of areas which together formed the first expansion of the old Macedonian kingdom. The Argeadae become the power of the region, and it was they who impose Hellenization on the region. This program may have required the adoption of Greek names on their subjects. The Chinese were like this. South China wasnt originally Han but when it was conquered, part of the Sinification process was for these southerners to adopt Han names. A similar process is also noticed in the Arab conquest of Iran, the Middle East, Egypt, and North Africa. If there is truth to the non-Greek nature of the Minoans, then we have a case where the later epigraphy only shows Greek names. Yet the narrative evidence mentions the "Eteocretans" as a remnant of an earlier population.
See above. Like I said before, the Macedonians werent that numerous. Macedonia was a land that saw transformation of culture three times in the space of 600 years, unlike the Greek south which can boast a strong continuity of culture.
The Macedonians witnessed social, economic, and geo-political advantages in adopting Greek culture. The Illyrians on the other hand, first of all shouldnt be considered a unified bloc but rather a conglomerate of tribes vying for superiority amongst themselves much like the Thracians. Some of the Illyrian tribes were Hellenized, especially those near or in Epirus. Macedonia, on the other hand bore peoples of various origins, including Greeks, but under more unified rule. The Illyrians did not have competition with the Greeks in the Adriatic and so Greek culture did not really take root. The presence of Greek artefacts in Illyria proper are considered in the literature as prestige goods. Illyrian culture, like the Greek culture of the south shows continuity from an earlier period, again not like Macedonia where the cultural paradigm kept changing. As for Greek settlements in Illyria proper, I know of only two - Dyrrachium/Epidamnus and Apollonia, in the context of a much larger land area than that of Macedonia. So, again, as in the case of the Hellenization of non-Greek peoples you have mentioned, the Illyrians pose no comparison with the Macedonians. Calling this theory, the "Borg" theory is rather simplistic. We are not talking about something that happened quickly, but rather a complex process that occurred over the space of several hundred years. It is curious that while the ancient authors do mention many tribes in Macedonia, which left their names for regions of Macedonia itself, you still ignore that evidence. Add to this, the study of the corpus of Macedonian words, recorded by the classical authors, which showed that only 58 out of 153 words were shown to be Greek, but not just any Greek, but Attic Greek. You simply cannot make you case from the epigraphy of the region alone. The Greeks saw their own land as having at one time non-Greek tribes all over Greece, and linguists point to place-names in Greece which have non-Greek roots, and yet in the historical period all the "names" are Greek. Even in Crete, where its earliest ancient script cannot be deciphered in terms of Greek, has just about all "Greek" names in a later period. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hellinas
Knight
Joined: 20-Dec-2004 Location: Greece Online Status: Offline Posts: 85 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Jan-2005 at 21:47 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin >>As for Greek settlements in Illyria proper, I know of only two - Dyrrachium/Epidamnus and Apollonia, in the context of a much larger land area than that of Macedonia. So, again, as in the case of the Hellenization of non-Greek peoples you have mentioned, the Illyrians pose no comparison with the Macedonians. << It is at least ridiculous to suggest that even though it is a well known fact that the Hellines had populated half the mediterranean and established many colonies, we only find 2 in Illyria. Epidamnos and Apollonia just happen to be the most well known. This does not mean that they were the only two colonies. If you look up Ptolemy's Geography Book II, Chapter 15 The very fact that none of the existing languages in the area show NO connection to the original place names can be concidered as strong evidence, that the Albanian and FYROMian populations have NO connection what so ever to the ancient Illyrians and Macedonians. If you do another search you can find a Hellinic style helmet (dated 7th-6th cent BC) found in the regions of modern Albania and Yugoslavia. (see Shefton museum, university of Newcastle) >>Add to this, the study of the corpus of Macedonian words, recorded by the classical authors, which showed that only 58 out of 153 words were shown to be Greek, but not just any Greek, but Attic Greek.<< The problem for the supporters of this linguistic fiasco, is that not a single sentence of the alleged original Macedonian language does exist. All that is left are records of proper names (ALL HELLINIC IN ORIGIN) and isolated words, as E. Badian points out, these are hardly sufficient basis for judgments about linguistic affinities. >>The Greeks saw their own land as having at one time non-Greek tribes all over Greece, and linguists point to place-names in Greece which have non-Greek roots, and yet in the historical period all the "names" are Greek.<< LOL, good one. How about Isocrates Panegyricus? You conveniently forgot him. "For we did not become dwellers in this land by driving others out of it, nor by finding it uninhabited, nor by coming together here a motley horde composed of many races; but we are of a lineage so noble and so pure that throughout our history we have continued in possession of the very land which gave us birth, since we are sprung from its very soil." >>Even in Crete, where its earliest ancient script cannot be deciphered in terms of Greek, has just about all "Greek" names in a later period.<< What on earth are you talking about!!! If you are refering to Linear B' sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but its been deciphered since 1952 by M. Ventris (I'm sure many were very disappointed) and there has been alot of research that can also connect Linear A' to Hellinic but untill this is widely accepted as a fact, we can not prove nor argue about it. Another argument you conveniently use, is that Demosthenes called Philip a "barbarian. Why conveniently you might ask. Simply because either because it suits you to not mention or due to lack of knowledge you leave out the FACT that Demosthenes was part of the "party" that concidered that Philip would enslave and destroy Athens and for this reason attacked him. Actually such claims of bribery treason and backstabbing were very common. Another example that might help you understand what was going on at that time would be Aeschynes "against Timarchus". (we know for a fact that Aeschynes was hated by Demosthenes and his "party" because he signed the peace treaty in 346BC that ended the B' Athenean alliance) Where we find Timarchus attempting to convict Aeschynes for bribery (Philip was known for giving out gifts) and instead of preparing his defence he takes a totally different approach and attempts to prove Timarchus guilty of the law "grafi etairisios" and so he would be unable to press charges against him. >>ithe Afghan-Pakistani border<< Ahh, the Kalash. See this interesting site, you just might enjoy it. http://www.ishipress.com/kalashav.htm To "end" this, I'll just quote N.G.L Hammond: "What language did these `Macedones' speak? The name itself is Greek in root and in ethnic termination. It probably means `highlanders', and it is comparable to Greek tribal names such as `Orestai' and `Oreitai', meaning 'mountain-men'. A reputedly earlier variant, `Maketai', has the same root, which means `high', as in the Greek adjective makednos or the noun mekos. The genealogy of eponymous ancestors which Hesiod recorded [] has a bearing on the question of Greek speech. First, Hesiod made Macedon a brother of Magnes; as we know from inscriptions that the Magnetes spoke the Aeolic dialect of the Greek language, we have a predisposition to suppose that the Macedones spoke the Aeolic dialect. Secondly, Hesiod made Macedon and Magnes first cousins of Hellen's three sons - Dorus, Xouthus, and Aeolus-who were the founders of three dialects of Greek speech, namely Doric, Ionic, and Aeolic. Hesiod would not have recorded this relationship, unless he had believed, probably in the seventh century, that the Macedones were a Greek speaking people. The next evidence comes from Persia. At the turn of the sixth century the Persians described the tribute-paying peoples of their province in Europe, and one of them was the `yauna takabara', which meant `Greeks wearing the hat'. There were Greeks in Greek city-states here and there in the province, but they were of various origins and not distinguished by a common hat. However, the Macedonians wore a distinctive hat, the kausia. We conclude that the Persians believed the Macedonians to be speakers of Greek. Finally, in the latter part of the fifth century a Greek historian, Hellanicus, visited Macedonia and modified Hesiod's genealogy by making Macedon not a cousin, but a son of Aeolus, thus bringing Macedon and his descendants firmly into the Aeolic branch of the Greek-speaking family. Hesiod, Persia, and Hellanicus had no motive for making a false statement about the language of the Macedonians, who were then an obscure and not a powerful people. Their independent testimonies should be accepted as conclusive" (N.G.L. Hammond, The Macedonian State, p.12-13).
And please tell me why have you, Borza and the rest of the supporters of this theory only recently "woken up" and began to argue about the Macedonian origin, where were you let's say 60-70yrs ago, where were the memories of your great past hidden, why was there absolutely NO reference of any kind to the origin of the Macedonians in any part of Slavic history before? Edited by Hellinas |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Perseas
General 
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 14-Jan-2005 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 781 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jan-2005 at 07:32 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Linguistically, it doesnt exist real separation between dialect and language without a certain factor. The world usually takes into consideration the political factor in order to distinguish language from dialect. If we keep in mind that Pan-Hellenic region was constituted by smaller provinces like Attica, Lakaidemon,Corinthus etc and of course bigger provinces like Iperus, Thesprotia, Macedonia, Akarnania, Aitolia etcgreeks believed that they spoke different languages while actually all these languages werent anything else that dialects of greek language. Surely the most well-known from all of these Greek dialects was the dialect spoken in Athens, called Attic Dialect.
When someone was referring to the ancient Greek language he meant Attic dialect and any comparison between Macedonian and ancient Greek, actually it is comparison between Macedonian and Attic dialect.The difference between Macedonian and Attica dialects is similar with the difference between two dialects of German language. No one ever doubts that these two dialects are of German origin, even if they differ between them. Another multidialect example is the linguistic arrangement existing today in Italy. The official language of country is the one of Florence, but the population still speaks their own dialects. So why should ancient Greek be any different?
At that era, Greeks spoke more from 200 Greek dialects or languages as they called them. The most well-known from their dialects are: Ionian, Attica, Dorian, Aeolian, Cypriot, Arcadian, Aitolian, Macedonian and Lokric. Moreover we know that the Romans considered Macedonians as Greek-speaking.
Roman historian Titos Livius wroteAitolians, Akarnanians and Macedonians, men of similar language, united or separated because of insignificant causes which are appearing from time to time.. (Livius, History of Rome, Book Aitolians and Akarnanians were undeniably Greek tribes. In another circumustance Livius wrote: (General Paulus) sat in his official seat surrounded from a Macedonian crowdhis statements were translated in Greek language and were repeated by Praetor Gnaeus Octavius..if the Macedonian crowd in this concetration didnt speak the Greek language, why did Romans felt the need to translate the statements of Paulus in Greek>?
The Macedonian dialect was Aeolian dialect and it belonged in the summation of western Greek Languages (Hammond, the Macedonian State, p 193) All dialects differed eachother, but not so much that two individuals who were from different provinces of Greece wouldnt understand eachother. The military Yugoslavian Encyclopaedia , publication 1974 (Letter M, Page 219), one of the most Anti-Hellenic publications had reported u doba rimske invazije, njihov jezik bio grcki, ali se dva veka ranije dosta razlikovao od njega, mada ne toliko da se ta dva naroda nisu mogla sporazumevati. (at the time of Roman invasion, their language was Greek, but two centuries before, it was different enough, but no so much that the two populaces wouldnt understand each other). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2005 at 22:52 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hellinas
All this passage is saying is that Alexander identifies himself (or rather his father) as a Greek. Nothing suggests that Macedonia in this context was part of Greece. On the other hand, why does he even have to identify himself as Greek? Why not just say that he is the viceroy of Macedonia. This leaves the sense that he of necessity had to identify himself as Greek to distinguish himself from Macedonia, which at this period was Hellenizing, but was considered in the south as barbarous.
All this is talking about is the Macedonian royal house and Alexander in particular. Again, nothing here talks about Macedonia, itself.
Nothing here contradicts my "version" of history. The reality is this: Alexander I was judged a barbarian without hesitation by the athletes, despite his Greek name. Our source, Herodotus took great pains to "demonstrate" (his word) that the Macedonian royal house was Greek to the readers of his time. Again, none of the above passages quoted doesnt even address the issue of Macedonia itself.
Again, what this passage is describing is the royal house being Greek, not Macedonia being Greek.
Yes, and neither one of these is a descendant of Hellen, Dorus, Xuthus, nor Aeolus. "Macedon" was a "cousin" to the Greeks, but was not of the direct line of Hellen. Interesting.
The first passage should be amended to read "Makednon", not "Macedonian". "Makednon" is only associated with the Pindus Mountains, as far as Herodotus's usage is concerned. Nowhere else is the form "Makednon" used except in those two passages. Ive seen three different translations of the second passage, and all can be read in different ways. This is a fourth with an interestng twist. Of one reading, the sense is the proto-Macednons were the proto-Greeks - Deucalions people; of two other readings, the Macednons are rendered as proto-Dorians; this fourth reading renders the name as a place-name - somewhere in the Pindus Range, known as "the heights" without reference to an ethnic group!!!. What is left is the sense that "the original Greeks (aka proto-Dorians)" briefly settled a place called Makednia in the Pindus Mts. If we are to consider the Macednons as proto-Dorians (based on two translations of the second passage), we must also consider other Greek points of view. Herodotuss view is merely one of several other views which range from them being barbarians to Aeolians to Pelasgians. We note that Hesiod, almost 300 years before, made no lineal connection between "Macedon" and "Dorus", and thus Herodotuss view should be considered what was believed by some during his time. Herodotuss contemporary, Hellanicus renders Macedon as a "son of Aeolus". The common denominator seems to be the perceptions of the two authors. Herodotus, being Dorian, saw something "Dorian-like" from the Macedonians, while Hellanicus, being Aeolian, saw them as Aeolians. This would rather show the apparent eclecticism of the Hellenizing of the Macedonians, thus not really revealing to the Greeks who they really were, rather than showing them to be Greek. Another (modern) view stresses what is meant by Macednons being "proto-Dorians". Both Hammond and Borza shared the view that the Dorians and Macednons were groups in contact with each other in the Pindus Mountains prior to the migration of the Dorians. But while Hammond originally portrayed the Macedonians as speaking a "patois which was not recognizable as a normal Doric Greek but may have been a north-west-Greek dialect of a primitive kind", Borza characterized them as "Indo-European speakers of proto-Greek" "of northwest Greek stock". Herodotus and some of his contemporaries apparently saw something primitively "Dorian-like" of the Macedonians and pointed to the Pindus where the "split" supposedly occurred.
The physical evidence of Hellenization only really begins after 650 BC, and become predominant after 550 BC according to the archaeology. As Ive mentioned before in another message, the process of Hellenization was complex. Initial Hellenization may have begun with these colonies, but it seems that the force of language may have come from the west, from regions of predominantly Northwest Greek dialect. We know of Greeks "living" in Macedonia, and perhaps it was they who brought about the final Hellenization of the Macedonians.
I know about Archontiko quite well. But nothing in the article specifies these finds as being Greek. Needless to say, the cemetary dates from about 550 to 400 BC, in the time after the Illyrian period, at the beginning of the Hellenization period in Macedonia. No contradictions here to my position.
I specified my sources toward the beginning of the thread. The site you mention only deals with the archaeology of the period after the Illyrian phase as well as after the establishment of the Argaedae at Aegae.
480 Boxing Theagenes Thasos - Thasos was an island to the east of Chalcidice. It didnt become Macedonian until after the complete subjugation of Chalcidice by the Macedonians by 348 BC. 472 Boys' Boxing Tellon Orestheia - The Orestians were a Molossian tribe according to Hecateus, not Macedonian, but inhabited western Macedonia and were not completely unified with the Argead state until after the time of Thucydides. 408 Tethrippon Archelaos King of Macedonia. We already have documentation from Herodotus, that Macedonian kings could compete in the Olympics, successfully "proving" Greek descent from the time of Alexander I. Note: only the kings were permitted to participate in the Games. 380 Pankration Xenophon Aigai . There was an Aigai in Achaea, in the northern Peloponnese. All names mentioned after these either refer to Macedonian kings, or to places not originally or necessarily Macedonian.
The evidence of Hellenization in Pelagonia, Brygia, and Paeonia only dates from the same period that it occurred in eastern Macedonia. Prior to this, we can see that Illyrian Glasinac Culture had dominated these regions, and further south into Eordia, just as it did in eastern Macedonia, in the period, c. 800-650 BC. Sources: The Illyrians, by John Wilkes and previous sources mentioned earlier in this thread.
The Bryges were located just south of the Paeonians, and form with them, along with the Pelagones(which may have had a Brygian origin), an ethnos of ill-defined peoples extending into eastern Macedonia and going south beyond Mt. Olympus. Neither the ancient Greeks nor modern scholarship has been able to match them with either the Illyrians or the Thracians. If the Bryges were the ancestors of the Phrygians, and since the Phrygian language is closely related to Greek, these central Balkanic groups may pose as an intermediate link between the Greeks and the northern Balkanic peoples.
Not only was there a Hellenization in Paeonia, but we do know of Paeonian kings bearing Greek names. At the beginning of the reign of Philip II, the reigning Paeonian monarch bore the good Dorian name of Agis. It was only after the death of Agis, did Philip decided to invade and conquer Paeonia, which he considered was a threat to his aspirations.
The chronological scope of the above only points to the period of Hellenization of the central Balkans after the Hellenization of Macedonia. In none of these sources is there an indication of the pre-Hellenic nature of Macedonian culture. All the evidence is of 7th century date or later. This is consistent with what Ive been saying all along. Hellenization began by 650 BC in Macedonia and predominates by about 550 BC. Prior to this date the culture of Macedonia was Illyrian . 800-650 BC) and before that, it was Brygian . 1150-800 BC). Of all the sources cited above, only three make any identification of the Macedonians as being Greek. Care must be taken to distinguish "Hellenic" from "Macedonian". As one of your sources states:
Note 1: Iron Age III = 6th and 5th centuries BC. Note 2: Nice Cut & Paste Edited by Sharrukin |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hellinas
Knight
Joined: 20-Dec-2004 Location: Greece Online Status: Offline Posts: 85 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jan-2005 at 21:12 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin >>Yes, and neither one of these is a descendant of Hellen, Dorus, Xuthus, nor Aeolus. "Macedon" was a "cousin" to the Greeks, but was not of the direct line of Hellen. Interesting. << Cousin, nephew, uncle what is this stuff and what difference does it make, since we see a direct connection. According to you the Magnites/Magnicians had no connection to the Hellines either since Magnus and Makednos were brothers. >>The Orestians were a Molossian tribe according to Hecateus, not Macedonian<< Actually, the Orestians were decendants of Orestes of Mycenaea, one of their most important cities was Argos Orestikon its significance already mentioned before. >> There was an Aigai in Achaea, in the northern Peloponnesus.<< Sorry but this Aigai is the ancient name of the place known today as Virgina. The local Makedonian myths tell us that their first King was >> Ive seen three different translations of the second passage, and all can be read in different ways. << Here is the text in Hellinic, be so kind as to tell me how should this be translated and where do place names get their name from if not their founder and the people that populate them, beside the ones that are given some religious name like Athens?
Funny but I do recall you calling them cousins??? Anyway: "And she (Thyia, sister of Hellen) conceived and bare to Zeus who delights in the thunderolt two sons, Magnes and Makedon, rejoicing in horses, who dwell round about Pieria and Olympos."
>> Borza characterized them as "Indo-European speakers of proto-Greek" "of northwest Greek stock".<<
>> The physical evidence of Hellenization only really begins after 650 BC<< I fail to understand the use of the term Hellinization. Do you mean that they adopted Hellinic life-style, language, customs and religion, something that they were totally alien to before this time?
You also specified what your thoughts about the Makedonians is: >>Note 2: Nice Cut & Paste http://forums2.vmacedonia.com/6686.html<<
Edited by Hellinas |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jan-2005 at 22:31 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hellinas
Ive looked at the Ptolemys geography as well as well as works on Illyria, and the only other Greek place-names in evidence are the following: Issa, Pharos, and Corcyra Nigra. The literature portrays this group of Greek settlements as being of later foundation. All other place-names were either Illyrian or "other". So, lets put the evidence at five according to the Geography. A more ancient source, The Periplus (. 350 BC),records the coastal geography and ethnology of ancient Illyria. It was quite specific in naming places which it considered "Greek". These were Heraclea, Pharos, Issa, Epidamnus, and Apollonia. In either case, Illyria is still different from Macedonia. Its culture remained non-Hellenic and the literature considers artefacts of Greek origin found in classical Illyria as either being imports or imitations.
Whether "existing languages" show connection or not to the original place-names is beyond the scope of this thread. We are not talking about Albanians or FYROMians. We are talking about Macedonians (and Illyrians).
There are other fine examples of artefacts of original Greek manufacture in ancient Illyria, but the literature considers them either as imports or imitations. Illyria remained culturally non-Hellenic. The Glasinac Culture which began about 1300 BC in Illyria, expanded to its greatest extent covering the regions of Paeonia and Macedonia between about 800 to 650 BC and continued to exist after its recession back into Illyria, until about 300 BC. The greatest Greek cultural impact, called the "Greco-Illyrian" phase, occurred between c. 550 and 450 BC, but here again, the evidence only shows that the Greek artefacts were imported. Macedonia, in contrast, after the recession of the Glasinac Culture, became almost thoroughly Hellenized (i.e. adopted the culture of the Greeks, instead of just importing Greek artefacts). In the same token that Greek artefacts were found in Illyria, Macedonia received artefacts and cultural motifs of Thracian origin during the period of Hellenization .
Virtually everything we know about the non-Hellenic languages of the Balkans comes from either place-names, personal names or words recorded as such by the classical authors. No one is going to challenge whether such a word, personal name or place-name is either "Illyrian" or "Thracian" and not Greek using purely linguistic methods, but if the same treatment is used considering "Macedonian", as Crossland has done, someone cries "fiasco". On the subject of "proper names" no one can say that they are "all" Hellenic in origin, and what must not be forgotten is that the evidence of personal names in the epigraphy of the region are relatively late in the historical record. Some names could be Hellenic but could also be foreign, considering that we are speaking about a region of various ethnicities, some quite close to Hellenic affinity, since, if we consider the Phrygians as originally possessing Macedonia, their language was close to Greek. In terms of place-names, I would need to remind you that most of the districts of Macedonia were named after non-Greek peoples, such as Pieria, Bottiaea, Mygdonia, etc. The region which included Pella was originally Paeonian, and the region of Pelagonia was originally Brygian. Both of these peoples were said to have had hegemony over Macedonia before the rise of the Argaeadae.
The chauvenism of Isocrates is relatively late in the political thought of the Greeks. You realize that I can quote even more ancient sources like Herodotus and Thucydides to the contrary, and even later sources like Strabo. Isocrates in this sense is therefore rather unique. If I "conveniently forgot" Isocrates, its only because he stands in relative isolation to other authors who were not ashamed to admit that they were conscious of origins other than Greek.
I was talking about Linear A. Linear B obviously came from Linear A, yet the values associated with the characters of Linear B render Linear A incomprehensible. I see that you hope that Linear A turns out to be Greek. Some of the most recent scholarship, Ive seen, however seems to point to a relationship with Luwian. Greek mythology points to a relationship between Crete and southwest Anatolia, where Luwian dialects were known to have been spoken, but as you say "we cannot prove or argue about it."
Demosthenes does not stand in isolation. A century before, Thrasymachus called the current reigning Macedonian king, a "barbarian" too. Demosthenes was part of the party that considered Philip a threat. So what? His nemesis, Aeschines, sought peace with Philip to preserve Athenian interests. All this suggests is two different views as to how to deal with Philip. The antics both sides used to discredit the other merely represented Athenian politics as usual. Virtually all the great Athenian politicians faced such ordeals. Nothing suggests, here, that the other side considered Philip any less a "barbarian".
The subjects were the Pathans and Baluchis. The point was how a large ethnic group can be assimilated by a smaller ethnic group. Yes, Ive heard about the Kalash. There was quite a pronounced Greek settlement and regime in the region surviving until the 1st century BC when the Greeks were supplanted by the Sakas. Nevertheless, Greek continued to be used based on the evidence of the coinage until about AD 100 when Kanishka I, king of the Kushans replaced Greek with "Aryan", the language of the Bactrians.
Care must be taken not to make ethnic conclusions by names alone. Bulgarians, speaking a Slavonic language bare a name of Turkic origin. The very name Ethiopian, itself is of Greek origin, yet Ethiopians are not Greek. Greeks at one time took the name of the Romans, of obvious non-Hellenic origin.
It probably does, but in what way? The only implication is that "Macedon" was related to Greeks, as a "cousin" to Greeks. He was "Greek-like". Linguistically he may have spoken a language with a close affinity to Greek like Phrygian, but linguistically could not be classified as Greek.
The problem here is that Magnes, originally was not a "son of Aeolus". True, when inscriptions become available, the Magnesians were speaking an Aeolic dialect, however, not just any Aeolic dialect, but rather Thessalian Aeolic. We know that subsequent to Hesiod, the Thessalians conquered the Magnesians, reduced them to the status of perioikoi, and thus imposed their dialect on them. It was only in the time of Apollodorus (c. 150 BC) when "Magnes" was said to have been "son of Aeolus".
If this was true, then why are they given a collateral line instead of a direct line to Hellen? No, those Greeks in the time of Hesiod saw something "Greek-like" in the "first cousins" but could not put them ethno-linguistically under "Doric", "Ionic", "Aeolic", or "Achaean".
There is even a problem here. Nowhere in the Persian inscriptions is there a description of the geography of most of the dahyavas "countries" under Persian rule. The yauna takabara is merely a name in some of the country lists and nothing more. The term yauna takabara may very well fit anywhere in mainland Greece, since another kind of "hat" known as the petasos was also popular in the mainland. There are many works which identify Macedonia as part of another dahyava called Skudra, which included Thrace. In fact, there was a town in Bottiaea in Macedonia itself, called Skydra, more than 15 miles to the northwest of Aegae, which may have been a seat of a local Persian governor, although the documentation from Herodotus only mentions Persian governors at Eion and Doriskos in Thrace.
Hammonds earlier idea was that the Macedonians were "Dorians-to-be" speaking a "patois which was not recognizable as a normal Doric Greek but may have been a north-west-Greek dialect of a primitive kind", citing Herodotus, but later concluded that they were "Aeolic", citing Hellanicus. If two contemporary sources are drawing different conclusions as to the identity of the Macedonians, this is enough to draw suspicion as to their identity. Macedonia during the time of the two authors was in the full throws of Hellenization drawing from many sources. It was the proverbial elephant giving its observers only what it wanted to give them (or what they wanted to get), and thus the Greeks saw them as everything from "Dorian-like", to "Aeolic", to "barbarians".
Nothing needs to be said about having a "motive for making false statement" about Macedonian identity. It is the nature of the evidence itself which is questioned.
The "theory" itself is ancient. Arrian speaks about "the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian" (Book 2.11), and Strabo speaks about the population of Macedonia as being "barbarians"or "barbarous" (Book 7.7.1; Book 8.1.1). For more recent works, I have an original copy of the The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, Mythology, and Geography (1850) which defined Macedonia as "a country in Europe, north of Greece...", and defined the Macedonians as "never regarded by the other Greeks as genuine Hellenes. Moreover, was only in the south of Macedonia that the Greek language was spoken..." So, no. There was no "wake up". The idea that Macedonians werent Greeks had always been there.
But that is obviously false. In no uncertain terms, is that the "Argos" referred to, was the Dorian Tenemid Argos of the Peloponnese. This identification is consistent with other classical sources. They always pointed to Peloponnesian Argos as the source of the dynasty.
But we are still talking about a royal house, not an ethnicity or language. The Argeadae went to great lengths to prove that they were Greeks, but not just any Greeks, but Argives, which during the 7th century had the most prestige among the Greeks for their leadership under Pheidon, and was among the most ancient seats of kingship in all Greece. Subsequently, the Argives were supplanted by the Spartans in the leadership role. The Argeadae, "sons of Argaeos" may have used their own name to make that connection. In regards to Orestias, it must be commented that it was not a Macedonian canton, but was actually a Molossian one. The Orestae, being a mixed Greco-barbarian population, and having as well as having a royal house of its own claiming Boiotian ancestry, would have obviously not have been an ideal place to claim Greek ancestry. That being said, why not Thessalian Argos, or Amphilochian Argos? For that matter, why not Paeonian Argos, five miles northwest of Stobi?
But in what way? All those Argoses could have been named such because of the fame and prestige of Peloponnesian Argos. Otherwise "argos" as a Greek descriptive could have meant "shining", "glistening", "bright"; or "white".
One of the ways the Greeks related their origins was through geneologies baring the names of the Greek tribes. The tribes recognized as Greek (i.e. the Dorians, Aeolians, Ionians, and Achaeans) were said to have descended from Hellen. The Magnesians and Macedonians were not recognized as such because they defied this classification. Time passed by and first the Magnesians were Aeolianized by the Thessalians, and later the Macedonians were Hellenized from all quarters of the Greek world. The much later Greek geneologies (up to 300 years later) reflected these changes.
This was a later invention to attempt a more prestigious past. The name "Orestae" is a natural Greek word meaning "mountaineers". The Orestae was in a mountainous region. In logic, it is the simpler explanation that is probably the truth. .
Sense is irrelevant. The "line" was "drawn" by the ancient Greeks themselves. I merely reflect the ancient evidence.
The artefacts are legion. See above in my discourse about the Illyrians. Otherwise please refer to The Illyrians by John Wilkes.
Hehe. Oh no I did not.
Im quite sure that Greeks travelled into Illyrian lands during Mycenaean times and founded communities, but the ancient evidence shows that culturally, the Mycenaeans did not make a true cultural impact on the Illyrians. These first Hellenes were assimilated by the Illyrians. For the nature of the later Greek impact on the culture of the Illyrians, please refer above to my discussion on the Illyrians.
I have no problem accepting Greeks of non-Greek origins. So we have Phoenicians which within a short time became Greeks. But now, we need to put certain things in perspective regarding the Cadmus connection with Illyria. This particular legend is very late in history, dating to about the 2nd century BC. Another theory known to Appian of Alexandria, 2nd century AD, makes Illyrius, son of Polyphemus and Galatea. He in fact stated that he knew "numerous mythologies" regarding Illyrian origins, but said that the Polyphemus myth was the "most acceptable". It is thus more than likely that the Cadmus legend really only reflected later Greek influence in Illyria. The Hellenistic period in Illyria began by about 300 BC. This was just preceded by a series of Illyrian-Macedonian wars which ultimately broke the military power of the Illyrians, and concluded in the Hellenistic cultural influence from Epirus. Prior to the earliest mention of "Illyrius, son of Cadmus", we do have an earlier legend recorded by Herodotus (Book 5.61) in which those Cadmeans which survived the destruction of Thebes by the Argives migrated to the Illyrian Encheles, many generations after Cadmus supposedly migrated to the same tribe to father "Illyrius". The earlier legend was probably connected to how the Boeotians gained their name, from another Illyrian tribe called the Boioi, just south of the Encheles and north of Mt. Boion, in northeastern Epirus. Therefore the "Cadmus - Illyrius myth"was a later invention which only reflected a time when Illyria became Hellenized.
The list of Olympic winners presented was given as is, without provenance. Based on the objections I listed, this list looks like a desperate attempt to prove something that is not there; just an arbitrarily picked list. The only thing of substance is the list of royal winners. How is the reader to know that the Aigai listed is Macedonian Aigai and not Achaean Aigai? Where did this list come from?
There is already a problem here. The "Karanus myth" is later than the Perdiccas tradition, the latter of which Herodotus expressly said was given him by the Macedonians themselves. Therefore the "Karanus myth"was simply an attempt to give the Macedonian rulers a greater connection to the founder of Dorian Argos himself. Even later, we have those who attempted a reconciliation of the "Karanus myth" with the Perdiccas tradition by making Perdiccas the third successor of "Karanus".
This "newer" Macedonian tradition contradicts the Greek tradition. For starters the original Greek version places Pheidon "tenth from Temenus". The successor of Temenus was Ceisus and his successor was Medon. In the original version, as recorded by Herodotus, it was Perdiccas who founded Aigai.
Yes, and in this version, it wasnt Perdiccas or Karanus who was the first king but an Archelaus!!! Really, if we have contradictory stories about the origins of the royal family, this is enough to draw suspicion as to their origins. We already have documentation as to Greek attitudes to the Macedonian royal house and it shows that despite their Greek names, they were still considered "barbarians".
I do not dispute place-names of Greek origin in Macedonia. We already have narrative documentation of Greeks "resident" in Macedonia. We also have narrative documentation of Macedonians bearing Greek names being called "barbarians". Just because a city has a Greek name doesnt mean that they were Greeks.
I do not have the arrogance to second guess the divergent readings of the translators, but I will respond to your question regarding place-names. What is generally agreed is that Herodotus is describing the direct descent and movement of the Dorians from Hellen in Phthia, to illustrate his idea that the Dorians were "always" Greeks. We must note that the word Makednon is only used in association with the Pindus, whether as a place-name or as an ethnic name. It was never used to designate Macedonia itself. It is a known fact that an ethnic name can expand to include a large region where most of the population is of diverse origins. Those regions initially conquered by the Argeadae were virtually all under barbarous tribes. Where the Argead state began "in another part of Macedonia" was near a place whose name was of Brygian origin, the Gardens of Midas. As to how "Makednons" related to Dorians, neither Hammond nor Borza considered the Makednons in the direct line of the Dorians, but rather a group in association with the Dorians in the Pindus range, where the Makednons were influenced by the Dorians. It must be duly noted that the Macedonians in Herodotus were never referred to as Macednons and that Herodotus never really defined the "Macedonians" The only place which merely suggests how Herodotus defined Macedonia was in Book 7.131, where Xerxes was in Macedonia, where he sent ambassadors "to Hellas".
The operative word was "lineal" as opposed to collateral
Its as good a definition as any. Note the word "true"
I never claimed that the Macedonians were Illyrians. Aside from Illyrians and Thracians there was another ill-defined group of Balkan peoples. These included the Paeonians and Brygians, among others in Macedonia. If it is true that the Phrygians were by origin, Brygians, and that they had domination over Macedonia (as told by Herodotus), and that the Phrygian language is closely related to Greek, then we have cause to suspect that a language (or languages) closely related to Greek was/were spoken in Macedonia. The archaeological evidence from the period 1150 to 800 BC does show a culture originating from the region of the classical Brygians predominating Macedonia, including the site of Vergina (Aegae) itself.
See above for explanations of those names.
Yes. The culture of Macedonia prior to the rise of the Argeadae was of non-Greek origin. My primary source is Hammond himself in The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. III Part I: The Prehistory of the Balkans; The Middle East; And the Aegean World, Tenth to Eighth Centuries BC, pages 642-656. This is the most comprehensive treatment of culture and archaeology of Macedonia prior to Hellenization, that Ive found. You will find this reference and another more recent treatment of the physical evidence in Borza on the bottom of page 1 of this thread.
Strange - either they are Greek or "FYROMian" sites. The reality, is that this is mere coincidence. I stand on my own reasoning and research. You obviously find nothing proving anything and Im not surprised. For me, if anything, if I can at least, with facts and reasonable arguments impress on those who want to inquire on the identity of the ancient Macedonians, to cast a healthy doubt on their so-called Hellenism, then that is sufficient.
You fail to mention that Herodotus had a high regard to the Athenians. Be as it may, if Herodotus "attacks" the "ethnic purity" of the Greeks, the FACT is that he only echoes the majority opinion of the ancient Greeks. In your eyes, I guess, most ancient Greek authors had this "self-hatred" of their ethnic identity. What bothers me is this insistence of "ethnic purity". Nobody is "pure". What bothers me equally is the "imposition" of this modern idea of what it is to be Greek on how the ancient Greeks saw themselves. The ancient Greeks accepted origins from non-Greek sources. It did not bother their self-identity as Hellenes. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yiannis
Sultan 
Joined: 03-Aug-2004 Location: Neutral Zone Online Status: Offline Posts: 2329 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jan-2005 at 02:16 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharukin, the Greeks called "bastards" as "sons of Aeolus", thus "children of the wind"! Thought I might bring a new dimension to the discussion |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics
Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2005 at 21:40 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Better, an interesting "twist" to the discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
JasSum
Knight
Joined: 26-Jan-2005 Location: Macedonia Online Status: Offline Posts: 80 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jan-2005 at 21:04 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin ... WOW
:} Nothing to add after post like yours ..... just ... WOW :} And for saving me of typing all that (but not at such level) i own you .... a beer? :}} |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hellinas
Knight
Joined: 20-Dec-2004 Location: Greece Online Status: Offline Posts: 85 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Jan-2005 at 05:32 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
LOL!!! Yeah I do believe that.
I won't get in to the rest of your post, I'll "selectively only comment on your "stand on your own reasoning and research" in order to prove your BIAS agenda!!! You mention Strabo, but let us all see what he really said:
So unlike you'd want him to, he clearly connects Makedonia to Hellas, the very FACT that he said "HELD BY BARBARIANS is NOT a comment on the origin of the Makedonians but on the ROMANS that had already conquered Makedonia in 149BC. So when Strabo wrote his Geography the Romans had already annexed Makedonia as a Roman province.
As anyone can see if they truly want to read the text and not just post imaginary translations to prove their fictitious PROPAGANDA to be a fact. Strabo CLEARLY mentions NOTHING about the Makedonians being barbarians, just some barbarians found in Makedonia!!!!
Nothing here about ancient rivalry, unless you see things differently once again Source for Strabo: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ And for Arrian :>> http://pda.websfor.com/alexander/arrian/book2a.asp > > Nice attempt to distort historic FACTS but unfortunately for you and the wanna-be Makedonians, you actually proved the FACT that the Makedonians were Hellinic people and that your posts are BIAS.!!!!>> Yiannis The correct comment would be WORDS OF AEOLUS!! 
Edited by Hellinas |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aristoteles
Samurai 
Joined: 03-Jan-2005 Location: Greece Online Status: Offline Posts: 106 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Feb-2005 at 02:32 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If I may step in for a second? Thank you. Although I do disagree with Sharukkin on the issue (wether ancient Macedonians were Greek or not) I have enjoyed reading his replies. He does indeed start from a wrong premise. I mean he is perfectly and absolutly convinced that Ancient Macedonians were non-Greeks to start with. It is a common fallacy among historians and archeologists to formulate a theory or draw a conclusion, and refuse to look for new and contradicting material. And as a common fallacy, it's perfectly excusable, I myself am not immune on this. Besides that, his solid and fair debating techniques, and his knowledge of history, cannot be questioned. Furthermore, he had a very interesting exchange of posts with a few posters, with loads upon loads of data, sources and evidence from both sides. Meaning, any intelligent bystander can draw his own conclusions from this exchange and nobody has to take either Sharrukins or Romanos or anyone elses position for granted but they can check their sources and material and find out for themselves. but the evolution of the topic has gone way off, and it is now just another battlefield involving vulgar propaganda and rather immature "arguments" and Sharrukin is right to protest. I would like to ask all parts involved to either to go back to an intelligent exchange of valid data, or seize polluting a good topic that has provided us all with more insight on this subject than a 100 topics on this matter. Edited by Aristoteles |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Feb-2005 at 00:49 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would like to commend the moderators for recognizing the value of this thread. Far too many valid questions and responses had been posted on this thread to allow it to be spoiled by the most recent posts. At first, when I saw that this thread was closed, I was going to post a protest to them, and if nothing was changed, I was going to leave AllEmpires, with the idea that AllEmpires had been taken over by those with "bias agendas". After seeing other threads closed because of the same subject matter, I felt I had to post a spirited defence of this thread (since then deleted, which is okay) to ensure that the proper authorities saw this thread for what it is. I'm just glad that the moderators were able to see this. It would have been a travesty to shut it down and bury it. Now back to business. Hellinas
I was very well aware what Strabo said about Macedonia being part of Greece, and there was a reason behind this, which I will address in a forthcoming post. But what you failed to mention, (and what I was addressing) was the FACT that Strabo considered Macedonia although "indisputably Greece" was "held by the barbarians". This is in contradistinction with Thessaly which was in "certain parts" held by barbarians. In that whole section, there is NO MENTION of Romans, but of Thracians, Illyrians, and Epirotic tribes. To further accent what I've written, if your interpretation was correct, then he should have written that the whole of Greece was "held by barbarians" since Greece was conquered by the Romans in 148 BC.
Lets read the very first part of this passage. "I began my description by going over all the western parts of Europe comprised between the inner and the outer sea;1 and now that I have encompassed in my survey all the barbarian tribes in Europe as far as the Tanas and also a small part of Greece, Macedonia," Note that he says that Macedonia was "a small part of Greece" and was included with "all the western parts of Europe" inhabited by "all the barbarian tribes in Europe". We also note that this "small part of Greece" was included in Book 7 with the rest of non-Greek Europe, while the "remainder of the geography of Greece" was described in Book 8. Why was Macedonia, "small" as it was included with the rest of non-Greek Europe? Why did he treat it with the rest of Europe? The answer is quite obvious - it was the one part of Greece having a mostly (if not totally) barbarian population. "Macedonians" not being mentioned, was quite unnecessary.
I made a mistake here.
Hellinas, it is your own BIAS that has prevented you from reading the obvious contexts of the above passages. YOU wanted to see what you WANTED to see. While I grant you, rightfully, that you do indeed issue valid challenges, you show a pattern of citing passages in most cases out of their context. Add to this, your modern chauvenistic perception of Greek identity, as compared to how the ancient Greeks viewed themselves, and everything you try to prove is colored by that misconception. All I ask you to do is to study carefully your material (and mine) before responding to my challenges. You will become the more credible without those ideas. In my next post I will address the reason WHY Macedonia was considered in this late period a part of Greece.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cyrus Shahmiri
Administrator 
King of Kings Joined: 07-Aug-2004 Location: Iran Online Status: Offline Posts: 6240 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Feb-2005 at 04:05 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin, you are already the moderator of this forum, it means you can lock, unloack, delete, move, edit, ... every thread that you want, meanwhile Hellinas who was banned, was unbanned to continue this discussion. If you leave AE then I will close the whole forum! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ionian
Pretorian 
Joined: 28-Feb-2005 Location: Greece Online Status: Offline Posts: 175 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Mar-2005 at 14:30 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
what Alexander 's language?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phallanx
Chieftain
Joined: 07-Feb-2005 Location: Greece Online Status: Offline Posts: 1283 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Mar-2005 at 21:11 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
He spoke an albanian dialect (kai den gamiwmaste lew egw!!!!) ban me all you want truth will prevail |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Qnzkid711
Knight
Joined: 10-Jan-2005 Location: Albania Online Status: Offline Posts: 60 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Mar-2005 at 21:35 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Well I have a friend named Alexander and he doesnt care about helenization and speaks cantonese
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Europe and Asia are finally mine. Woe to Chritendom. She has lost her sword and shield."
Ottoman Sultan after hearing of the death of Skenderbeg. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Mar-2005 at 04:29 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The short answer is, "Macedonian". According to the exhaustive Greek-English Lexicon (Liddell and Scott, original editors), we have the terms makedonizo, "speak Macedonian" and makedonisti, "in Macedonian". The problem, is what is meant by "Macedonian". According to The Oxford Classical Dictionary, the identity of Macedonian language is "disputed", and the Cambridge Ancient History, vol. III, part 2 characterizes the study as a "notorious problem". While some are content to proclaim the problem solved by citing the fact that only Greek inscriptions are found in Macedonia, and that the Macedonians bore Greek names, the narrative evidence suggests that Greeks from the south colonized parts of Macedonia and were described separately from Macedonians (Thucydides, Book 4.124), and that the Greeks had long known that barbarians can have Greek names (Herodotus, Book 5.22). The latest evidence suggests that, despite how some would characterize Macedonian as Doric or Aeolic, the Greek dialect spoken in Macedonia was in fact of the Northwest Greek variety. The epigraphic evidence only shows that Greek was spoken in Macedonia, but not that Macedonian was Greek, as well as showing that the evidence of Greek is mostly of 4th century BC date and later. The evidence of Greek through the inscriptions is sparse from an earlier period. This becomes the more poignant if one considers that the Macedones, themselves, only possessed a small portion of Macedonia, while the majority of the land was possessed by Epirotian, Thracian, and other tribes of indeterminent origin. Greek which may have been the lingua franca to communicate with these tribes became the language which bound all these tribes in the Macedonian federal state. Some love to quote Livy 31.29, to demonstrate that the Macedonians and Greeks spoke the same language. It may well be, that by 200 BC when this Aetolian speech was given, Greek may have superceded Macedonian. Two years later, the "Greeks" wanted the Macedonians "out of the whole of Greece" (Polybius, Book 18.2), the implication being that they were not Greeks or were not considered part of Greece. It is curious that the Macedonian king did not protest that his people were Greeks, but instead responded by accusing the Aetolians as not being all Greek. (Polybius, Book 18.5). Of the 153 Macedonian words stated as such from the ancient sources, only 58 could be positively identified as Greek - of Attic derivation, and therefore of non-native origin. Another 44 words could be Greek but also could be from other Indo-European languages, and yet another 51 have no satisfactory Greek etymology. What characterizes this group of Macedonian words is that they show a phonology consistent with that of Illyrian, Thracian, and Phrygian (the Phrygians, according to Herodotus, came from Macedonia). This doesn't suggest that Macedonian was one of these languages, but only that it shows a pattern characteristic of Balkan languages other than Greek. The identity of Macedonian thus remains open. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
paragraph XXIX)
It wasn't Arrian 2.11 where I quoted "the old racial rivalry between Macedonian and Greek" but rather Arrian 2.10.|
Post Reply
|
Page <12345 7> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 1.029 seconds.
