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  123 16>
Author
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 Topic: Who are the ancient Macedonians ?
    Posted: 30-Sep-2006 at 12:24

Sharrukin I start this topic about the origin of the ancient Macedonian history but if you want to post it in other thread I dont have any problem. The name of the thread is a copy-paste-edit idea from the  the known  book of  Poulton.Smile

 

We have to divide the seeking of the origin of Macedonians in two parts in my opinion.

 

The first one is when showed up the Macedonian name and the Greek suffix Mak=length in the linguistics and generally in the written history .And the second one those that is under the spectra of the archaeological findings.The latter can also divide in two more topics. The pre or pre-history  and the post Argead apeerance

 

Unfortunately, prehistory gives us no evidence which can be considered as concerning the Macedonian people. We have to descend relatively low on the ladder of history, to the 5th century B.C., to hear the first mention of the name "Macedonian" from the father of history, Herodotus , who, indeed, identifies it with the Doric tribe. He says  for "The Doric tribe"..

 

 

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.

 

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126&layout=&loc=1.56.1

 

 

The same historian mentions that the Spartans, the Corinthians, the Sicyonians, the Epidaurians and the Troezenians, all from the Peloponnese, took part in the naval battle of Salamis.

 

The following took part in the war: from the Peloponnese, the Lacedaemonians provided sixteen ships; the Corinthians the same number as at Artemisium; the Sicyonians furnished fifteen ships, the Epidaurians ten, the Troezenians five, the Hermioneans three. All of these except the Hermioneans are Dorian and Macedonian and had last come from Erineus and Pindus and the Dryopian region. The Hermioneans are Dryopians, driven out of the country now called Doris by Herakles and the Malians.

 

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126&layout=&loc=8.43.1

 

 

Thus, according to Herodotus, the Macedonians were Dorians, and the Dorians were a Macedonian tribe. He adds that the Macedonians considered themselves to be Greeks and he too is sure of their Greek nationality. The other Greeks thought the same, as is evident from the decision which was taken by the judges at the Olympic Games to allow Alexander the First to compete there.There are  the known quotes such as

 
Inform yoor King that a Greek,The king of the Macedonians,received you with frienship
 
 
 
 
and
 
Athenians....I would not speak, were I  not very worried for all Hellas.For I myself am Hellene by race from the begginning and I should not like to see a free Hellas become a slave
 
 
 
 
From these passages, where the Macedonians are discussed for the first time, it seems completely clear that the Greeks of the 5th century B.C. considered the Macedonians to be a part of the Doric tribe of Greeks, which had formerly lived around Pindus, and which had spread from there into other regions, not only eastwards into modern Macedonia driving out other Greek or foreign tribes in the way which the same historian describes elsewhere  but southwards as well, as far as the Peloponnese.

 

 

However, historians and linguists have not wished to content themselves with Herodotus testimony, however much it might be a reflection of his Greek contemporaries' opinion about Macedonian nationality and not an invention of his own. The Macedonian kings may have been Greeks, it was thought, but the people might not have been Greek speakers from the beginning; perhaps they had been Hellenized by their rulers later on. I think Sharrukin you are the one that agree with that option of the origin of the ancient Macedonians.

 

These doubts can be repudiated by the following remarks:

 

1) It is difficult to believe that, at that time, a Greek royal household was in a position to conquer and rule over an alien people which spoke a different language, while surrounded by a local military aristocracy-also speaking a different language-which never desired to remove the foreign ruler, It is not only nalve to accept such an idea, it would also compel us to accept a fact for which one could not easily supply an analogy from some other country.

 

 

2) Even if we do accept this rather improbable fact, what should have happened as a natural consequence would have been the linguistic assimilation of the Greek royal household by its subjects, and never the reverse. What always happens in the history of the nations is the linguistic absorption of the foreign rulers by the local people.Even when the rulers comprise an entire nation , it is sufficient for them to be less in number.

 

3) Even if the Macedonian kings did impose Greek on their subjects as a foreign language, it would have been impossible for the people to learn it so quickly, and not to preserve ,their own language side by side with it, which, as we know today, always happens in such cases, and impossible also for such a thing to escape the attention of Titus Livy, the Roman historian, who mentions that in the 3rd century B.C. the Macedonians spoke the same language as the (Greek) Aetolians and Acarnanians

 

These observations very much discredit any suspicion that the Greek kings of Macedonia could have made Greek speakers of a foreign people at such an early period, when there existed neither schools, nor printing, nor church. What would be able to dispose conclusively of this idea would be nothing other than a text written in the ancient Macedonian dialect-i.e. the dialect which the Macedonians spoke before they supposedly became Greek speakers, but unfortunately this does not exist.

 

All the ancient inscriptions from the depths of the Macedonian earth which have come to light under the archaeologists trowel belong to the era when the Macedonian kings had already made Attic the official dialect of their nation. To date, it has not been possible to find anywhere an inscription, even of one single phrase, written before the 5th century B.C.; that is to say, before the time when the Macedonians supposedly became speakers of Greek.

 

How are we to explain this?

 

It is entirely improbable that the Macedonians did not write in the 6th century B.C., since the Greek script was by then already known to peoples further to the north of them. it her, therefore, the old Macedonian inscriptions were all carved onto some perishable material and have disappeared without trace in the passage of time; or we must keep hoping that somewhere, they too await the archaeological pickaxe or the farmer's plough to drag them into the light of day.

 


Edited by akritas - 30-Sep-2006 at 12:30
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Oct-2006 at 16:33
Sorry for the delay in response, but, I was on vacation, and it took me a while to discover this thread.  I thought that it would be placed in the European/Mediterranean subforum, not here.
 
Before I began, I issue a warning to Istor and Patrinos, to write in English, otherwise face disciplinery action.
 
Now to begin:
 
Unfortunately, prehistory gives us no evidence which can be considered as concerning the Macedonian people. We have to descend relatively low on the ladder of history, to the 5th century B.C., to hear the first mention of the name "Macedonian" from the father of history, Herodotus....
 
Actually we can begin even earlier than Herodotus, but I'll just address the information you've presented for now.
 
Herodotus , who, indeed, identifies it with the Doric tribe. He says  for "The Doric tribe"..

 

 

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 same historian mentions that the Spartans, the Corinthians, the Sicyonians, the Epidaurians and the Troezenians, all from the Peloponnese, took part in the naval battle of Salamis.

 

The following took part in the war: from the Peloponnese, the Lacedaemonians provided sixteen ships; the Corinthians the same number as at Artemisium; the Sicyonians furnished fifteen ships, the Epidaurians ten, the Troezenians five, the Hermioneans three. All of these except the Hermioneans are Dorian and Macedonian and had last come from Erineus and Pindus and the Dryopian region. The Hermioneans are Dryopians, driven out of the country now called Doris by Herakles and the Malians.

 
Agreed, the texts are talking about the Dorian tribe.  However, it must be pointed out that the term used in this translation for "Macedonian" is the term Makednon, which in English would probably be translated as "Makednian".  This term is only used in reference to the Dorians, in the two passages you cited, and not anywhere else.  It is never used for "Macedonian" in reference to the true Macedonians.  All other references to Macedonians uses the root form "Makedo-", hence these are mutually exclusive terms.  Dorians were Makednian, not Macedonian. 
 
He adds that the Macedonians considered themselves to be Greeks and he too is sure of their Greek nationality. The other Greeks thought the same, as is evident from the decision which was taken by the judges at the Olympic Games to allow Alexander the First to compete there.There are  the known quotes such as
 
Inform yoor King that a Greek,The king of the Macedonians,received you with frienship
 
 
But, he says nothing of the sort.  He only claims that the Macedonian king was Greek.  He says nothing about the Macedonian people.
 
There are several things that need to be pointed out regarding the "Olympic episode"
 
1.  Despite his Greek name, Alexander was written off as a "barbarian" by the Greek athletes, the cream of the crop of Greek society. 
 
a.  Hence, it was a popular view that the Macedonians were considered barbarians. 
 
b.  it was not enough to have a Greek name.  They were not impressed that this Macedonian had a Greek name.  In their point of view barbarians can bare Greek names.
 
2.  Alexander "proved" that he was a Greek by showing that he was descended from a recognized Greek family.
 
a.  Alexander had to prove he was a Greek.
 
b.  He could not use his Macedonian identity to demonstrate his Greekness. 
 
c.  He could only prove his Greekness by claiming his origin from a Greek land (i.e. Argos) and family (Temenid).
 
Now some comments on Herodotus, himself.  When one reads his text, one wonders why Herodotus takes great pains to "prove" that Alexander was a Greek.  He does not use the same language in regards to Greek peoples and individuals.  In other words he does not go out to "prove" that those peoples and individuals already recognized as "Greek" were Greek.  Herodotus, therefore writes to "prove" that Alexander was a Greek, because he knew that his Greek readers would be skeptical of the Macedonian king's claim.  From their perspective, Alexander was a barbarian because he ruled a barbarian land.
 

These doubts can be repudiated by the following remarks:

 

1) It is difficult to believe that, at that time, a Greek royal household was in a position to conquer and rule over an alien people which spoke a different language, while surrounded by a local military aristocracy-also speaking a different language-which never desired to remove the foreign ruler, It is not only nalve to accept such an idea, it would also compel us to accept a fact for which one could not easily supply an analogy from some other country.

 
One that comes immediately to mind, is the Russian foundation of their first early state.  The Slavic tribes became weary of war among themselves so they invited the Varangians (Swedes) to be their rulers.  We note that the earliest Russian rulers bore Scandinavian names.  We also note that a "conquest" was not involved.

 

2) Even if we do accept this rather improbable fact, what should have happened as a natural consequence would have been the linguistic assimilation of the Greek royal household by its subjects, and never the reverse. What always happens in the history of the nations is the linguistic absorption of the foreign rulers by the local people.Even when the rulers comprise an entire nation , it is sufficient for them to be less in number.

 

But that's just it.  These "foreign rulers" were not alone.  We know that there were Greek colonies on the coast of Macedonia such as Pydna and Methone as well as other "Greeks inhabiting the country" (Thucydides 4.124.1).  It is therefore not necessary even to put the Macedonians into the equation.  There was already a Greek presence in Macedonia since the 8th century BC. 

 
From the study of the Indo-European languages point-of-view, the idea of a foreign language being introduced into a host region and supplanting the native language is not unusual.  There are documented cases of this having various different reasons for this, including economic and social factors (not necessarily war), but, this opens a new can of worms, so I'll just point to the example of the southeast coast of Africa.  Of the many languages spoken in the region, one, Swahili, became the dominant language, because of economic and social factors.
 

3) Even if the Macedonian kings did impose Greek on their subjects as a foreign language, it would have been impossible for the people to learn it so quickly, and not to preserve ,their own language side by side with it, which, as we know today, always happens in such cases, and impossible also for such a thing to escape the attention of Titus Livy, the Roman historian, who mentions that in the 3rd century B.C. the Macedonians spoke the same language as the (Greek) Aetolians and Acarnanians

 
Livy was quoting a Greek embassador in the year 217 BC (late enough for the Greek language to have become the dominant language).  Remember, there was a Greek presence since at least 734 BC (date of the foundation of Methone).  The Macedonians had 500 years to have adopted Greek.  This is long enough, don't you think?
 
Sorry for the formatting confusion.  I tried just about everything I know to correct this but sadly, I failed. 


Edited by Sharrukin - 09-Oct-2006 at 00:25
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: 08-Oct-2006 at 16:46
Sharrukin can you fix it please?  is confusing me a little bit.Is better to brake it in two parts
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2006 at 00:41
I've been having script-blocking issues on my desktop pc so I had to switch to my laptop.  I still have not been able to solve all my problems, but I hope this makes things easier for you to understand.
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: 09-Oct-2006 at 12:20

Originally posted by Sharrukin

Actually we can begin even earlier than Herodotus, but I'll just address the information you've presented for now

 

Originally posted by Sharrukin

Agreed, the texts are talking about the Dorian tribe.  However, it must be pointed out that the term used in this translation for "Macedonian" is the term Makednon, which in English would probably be translated as "Makednian".  This term is only used in reference to the Dorians, in the two passages you cited, and not anywhere else.  It is never used for "Macedonian" in reference to the true Macedonians.  All other references to Macedonians uses the root form "Makedo-", hence these are mutually exclusive terms.  Dorians were Makednian, not Macedonian.

 

I didnt know if you consider the mythology as a part of the history.This is the reason that I start with Herodotus. So I put and the  Homer and the others known poets.

 

For the  ancient Greek language  the name Makedon  or Makednon (latin forms) has the same meaning. The ethnic name Makedwn derives from the adjective Makednos as many known linquistic said(Hoffman,Kaleris,Adriotis).

 
Makednos was formed by the stem of the noun makos=length, with  the suffix d- and the ending nws.
 

The W is the omega in the Greek alphabete.

 
The first time that appear the mother word of the Makdwn was from Homer (Odes 106) when spoken for fylla makednes. Which mean long leaves. So your conclusion reagarding the Macedonians and Macednians is wrong.

 

Originally posted by Sharrukin

But, he says nothing of the sort.  He only claims that the Macedonian king was Greek.  He says nothing about the Macedonian people.

 

There are several things that need to be pointed out regarding the "Olympic episode"

 

1.  Despite his Greek name, Alexander was written off as a "barbarian" by the Greek athletes, the cream of the crop of Greek society. 

 

a.  Hence, it was a popular view that the Macedonians were considered barbarians. 

 

b.  it was not enough to have a Greek name.  They were not impressed that this Macedonian had a Greek name.  In their point of view barbarians can bare Greek names.

 

Your above quote is better to brake it in 4 sections or points
 
1. It is indicative that ONLY the other athletes protested and NOT Hellanodikae initialy, who in reality, are themselves the "cream of the crop of Greek society" and their judgement was considered sacred. Hellanodikae had to investigate the accusation of the other athletes - as its being done even in the modern athletics with judges - and Alexander proved to them he was a Greek and he was accepted by them as a bona fide competitor.

2. In the race itself, Alexander came in equal first (Herodotus 5.22) making the entire issue even more suspect to the ground that the original protest by his rivals may well have a claim to be regarded as one of the earliest recorded examples of those "dirty tricks" which so beset modern sport.

3. It is also indicative the moment Alexander I the Philhellene, announced his Temenid origin to all bystanders. Among Bystanders were certainly Argives and other Peloponessians. On the sound of the names "Temenos" and "Hercules" used by Alexander to trace his descent, they would stronly protest if it was not true. Hence those Argives and Peloponessians were aware of a number of Temenids having indeed migrated to Macedonia.

4. Macedonia at the time being, was isolated from the rest of Greece, generally unknown the to the majority of Greeks, who regarded it as a primitive backwater inhabited by semisavage barbarians whose political institutions were tribal to say the least and their customs, social values were primitive, to the degree that city-state Greeks thought about isolated Macedonia at all from the perspective of snobbish contempt and not in ethnological sense.

 

  

Originally posted by Sharrukin

2.  Alexander "proved" that he was a Greek by showing that he was descended from a recognized Greek family.

 

a.  Alexander had to prove he was a Greek.

 

b.  He could not use his Macedonian identity to demonstrate his Greekness. 

 

c.  He could only prove his Greekness by claiming his origin from a Greek land (i.e. Argos) and family (Temenid).

 

Now some comments on Herodotus, himself.  When one reads his text, one wonders why Herodotus takes great pains to "prove" that Alexander was a Greek.  He does not use the same language in regards to Greek peoples and individuals.  In other words he does not go out to "prove" that those peoples and individuals already recognized as "Greek" were Greek.  Herodotus, therefore writes to "prove" that Alexander was a Greek, because he knew that his Greek readers would be skeptical of the Macedonian king's claim.  From their perspective, Alexander was a barbarian because he ruled a barbarian land.

 

Alexander went to Olympia to participate  in the Olympics games and not to proved the Greekness of the Macedonians as doing today in the several conference.

In an racial patriarchical society, like the Macedonian  how can be a King to be different from his citizens ?

Dont forget thaht the Macedonian kings kept theirs  Royal tradition in combination with the Homeric epics of course.That did Alexander in the Olympics, just proved his Greek origin not only in the other Greeks but first to the Hellanodike.

 

 

Originally posted by Sharrukin

One that comes immediately to mind, is the Russian foundation of their first early state.  The Slavic tribes became weary of war among themselves so they invited the Varangians (Swedes) to be their rulers.  We note that the earliest Russian rulers bore Scandinavian names.  We also note that a "conquest" was not involved.

I am not saying that at the time, when Macedonians conquered the Emathia that wipe off all the previous tribes. What do you believethe Macedonians were autochthonous?

Also your example is not valid . Our issue is taking place in classic ages, not even in Hellenistic ages and certainly not hundred of years later as your example.
If the Macedonian royal house were "foreigners" rulling a native population, they would be viewed as such, having the usual encounters from the population, from time to time like a number of rebellions.
Nothing like that happened.

Originally posted by Sharrukin

But that's just it.  These "foreign rulers" were not alone.  We know that there were Greek colonies on the coast of Macedonia such as Pydna and Methone as well as other "Greeks inhabiting the country" (Thucydides 4.124.1).  It is therefore not necessary even to put the Macedonians into the equation.  There was already a Greek presence in Macedonia since the 8th century BC. 

What you mean with that? The Macedonian Kings helped from the colonies in order to gain mastery over an opponent ?

Colonies such as Methoni on the Thermaic gulf that would have had a close contact with Macedonia were tiny places, more trading posts if anything. If anything, they existed by the sufferance of the  Macedonian kings and they could hardly contemplate war against Macedonia in the absence of major allies Philip dispached with tremendous ease. Some peripheral traders may have become fluent in Greek, but certainly not the majority of the local population.

 

Originally posted by Sharrukin

From the study of the Indo-European languages point-of-view, the idea of a foreign language being introduced into a host region and supplanting the native language is not unusual.  There are documented cases of this having various different reasons for this, including economic and social factors (not necessarily war), but, this opens a new can of worms, so I'll just point to the example of the southeast coast of Africa.  Of the many languages spoken in the region, one, Swahili, became the dominant language, because of economic and social factors.

 

Originally posted by Sharrukin

Livy was quoting a Greek embassador in the year 217 BC (late enough for the Greek language to have become the dominant language).  Remember, there was a Greek presence since at least 734 BC (date of the foundation of Methone).  The Macedonians had 500 years to have adopted Greek.  This is long enough, don't you think?

 

Livy was my example. But even to accept your argument Alexander was clear as about the Macedonians before Philip era. The below  speech quoted from Arrian (7-9) and in my opinion gives the social and political situation before Phillip's reign.

 

For he found you vagabonds and destitute of means, most of you clad in hides, feeding a few sheep up the mountain sides, for the protection of which you had to fight with small success against Illyrians, Triballians, and the border Thracians. Instead of the hides he gave you cloaks to wear, and from the mountains he led you down into the plains, and made you capable of fighting the neighbouring barbarians, so that you were no longer compelled to preserve yourselves by trusting rather to the inaccessible strongholds than to your own valour.

 

So I think that you must abstraction a lot from the 500 years or then you accept that the Macedonians spoken a Greek dialect and in 220 B.C. happened this that Livy said.

 

As as about your claim in the IE theory why only Macedonians did not spread theirs language or civilization? But spread only the Greek civilization. And we are not speaking for the Africa but for the Mediterranean when any ancient nation spread its culture. Persian, Greeks and Romans.

 

 

 



Edited by akritas - 09-Oct-2006 at 12:29
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: 09-Oct-2006 at 12:46
Not again this....
Guys admit it..there is no "final conclusion"..
Macedonians were
1) an archaic Greek tribe,that crossed Vermion mountain end established the "Macedonian Kingdom" in 650 BC.
2)a non Greek tribe " " " " ".
Either primarily Greek or not every decent historian accepts that this tribe was sooner or later totally hellinized.
So whats the point of this debate?
Back to Top
nikodemos View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 24-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 248
  Quote nikodemos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2006 at 16:35
This is an interesting debate.
Sharrukin wrote:
From the study of the Indo-European languages point-of-view, the idea of a foreign language being introduced into a host region and supplanting the native language is not unusual.  There are documented cases of this having various different reasons for this, including economic and social factors (not necessarily war), but, this opens a new can of worms, ....

In my opinion it is not possible that the macedonians being a non-greek people  adopted so quickly the language of the Greeks just because there were some colonies in Challidike and on the coasts of macedonia.
At the same time there were many colonies in thrace but the hellenisation of the thracians was complete only after the  roman conquest(2nd-3rd century A.D.).But even at the time of Heraclius there were monasteries in Sinai where monks spoke the thracian language.St.Hieronymus some centuries earlier was proud of being able to speak some local illyrian dialect(5th century A.D.).How was it then that the non-greek macedonian language disappeared without leaving any trace or any mention especially considering that the macedonians unlike the thracians and the illyrians had conquered almost all the known world?If the macedonians were not Greek this would have led to a strong national pride  which would have had as a consequense the domination of the macedonian language and not of the greek language at the various places colonised by macedonian colonists.The Romans conquered all the known world,admired the Greek culture and were influenced greatly by the greeks but they didn't neglect their own language.Instead they cultivated their language.Why the earlier conquerors of the known world,the macedonians,didn't do the same? 
There were also  many colonies on the mediterannean coast of Gaul but after many years of interacting between the Greeks and the locals there were few signs of permanent hellenisation.
In Sicily the local peoples were not always on the side of the Greeks,there were many rebellions against the colonists,Greeks or carthaginians
In Egypt and in the seleucid domains the hellenisation of all the locals  was difficult,especially those that lived in rural areas outside large cities.Again at the time of Heraclius,that is 900 years of hellenic presence in Antioch,Palestine,Damascus,Tarsus, Alexandria and Ptolemais, the local people still spoke their native languages.Outside the cities of the Greeks in Syria,people spoke Aramaic mainly and outside Alexandria local  people spoke mainly Coptic in Egypt.
So how was it that the macedonians in less than 400 years assuming that the first greek colonies on the coasts were established in the 7th
century B.C. managed to become totaly hellenised,bearing hellenic  names not only the aristocrats but also the common people?(the shepherds from the mountains of upper macedonia had greek names).
We should not also forget that agreat part of the macedonian population lived in mountainous regions.How could these people get hellenised since they didn't have many contacts with Greeks from the colonies?

Akritas' argument seems  fair to me:why didn't the macedonians spread their own civilisation?


Edited by nikodemos - 09-Oct-2006 at 16:53
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2006 at 16:50

For the  ancient Greek language  the name Makedon  or Makednon (latin forms) has the same meaning. The ethnic name Makedwn derives from the adjective Makednos as many known linquistic said(Hoffman,Kaleris,Adriotis).

 
Makednos was formed by the stem of vthe noun makos=length, withg the suffix d- and the ending nws.

The W is the omega in the Greek alphabete.

The first time that appear the mother word of the Makdwn was from Homer (Odes 106) when spoken for fylla makednes. Which mean long leaves. So your conclusion reagarding the Macedonians and Macednians is wrong.

Umm, no.  The question is not that they are related forms or that they are of ultimate Greek origin.  The point, is that the form "Makednon" is only used for Dorians, and that the form "Makedon" is only used for Macedonians.  They are never used interchangebly.  Please do research on Herodotus.  He never mixes the two terms.  Hence, Makednians and Macedonians are two different peoples.
Now, there is no dispute that "Makedon" probably comes from "Makednon".  However, such names are not always indicative of ethnic origin.  If we take Slavic tribal names, for instance, we find that many come from Germanic (such as Slezhani, Spryevane), Iranic (Serb, Croat), and even Turkic (such as Bulgarian) origin.  It is therefore, from a much more wider historical context, not so significant, that the name "Macedonian" is of Greek origin.  Even today, Ethiopians bare a Greek name, but nobody says that they are Greek.
From the skeptic's point of view therefore, the background of the Macedonians is of a barbarous group which came into contact with the Makednian Dorians probably in the Pindus.  These barbarians were dominated by the Dorians and ultimately took the name "Macedonian", in the same way that the Slavonic Antes got their name from the Iranian Antsai. 
1. It is indicative that ONLY the other athletes protested and NOT Hellanodikae initialy, who in reality, are themselves the "cream of the crop of Greek society" and their judgement was considered sacred. Hellanodikae had to investigate the accusation of the other athletes - as its being done even in the modern athletics with judges - and Alexander proved to them he was a Greek and he was accepted by them as a bona fide competitor.
 
Here I would disagree.  The Greek athlete WAS the 'cream of the crop of Greek society'.  As such, the Greek athlete reflected that society.  Alexander was considered a barbarian because he came from a barbarian land.  From the evidence of Herodotus (some 30 years later), he was still trying to "prove" that Alexander was a Greek, hence the decision of the Hellanodikai was not really widely believed.

2. In the race itself, Alexander came in equal first (Herodotus 5.22) making the entire issue even more suspect to the ground that the original protest by his rivals may well have a claim to be regarded as one of the earliest recorded examples of those "dirty tricks" which so beset modern sport.
 
There is nothing to indicate that it was a "dirty trick".  The athletes simply dismissed him as a barbarian.  The conclusion of the event does not justify the original suspicion.  That is backwards reasoning.  Otherwise, can you document a similar situation in which an athlete was questioned for his Greekness?

3. It is also indicative the moment Alexander I the Philhellene, announced his Temenid origin to all bystanders. Among Bystanders were certainly Argives and other Peloponessians. On the sound of the names "Temenos" and "Hercules" used by Alexander to trace his descent, they would stronly protest if it was not true. Hence those Argives and Peloponessians were aware of a number of Temenids having indeed migrated to Macedonia.
 
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.

4. Macedonia at the time being, was isolated from the rest of Greece, generally unknown the to the majority of Greeks, who regarded it as a primitive backwater inhabited by semisavage barbarians whose political institutions were tribal to say the least and their customs, social values were primitive, to the degree that city-state Greeks thought about isolated Macedonia at all from the perspective of snobbish contempt and not in ethnological sense.
 
I disagree.  Greeks, especially the coastal colonial Greeks were in direct contact with the Macedonians.  In the north, the trade route later named the via Egnatia was already in use under the auspices of the Corinthians which ran through northern Macedonia.  The central hub of this trade route was Lyncestis which was ruled by the Bacchiads of Corinth.  The Macedonians were known by at least 734 BC.  Hesiod already mentions 'Makedon' by about 720 BC who locates them in Pieria where the first Greek colonies were located.  Hence, the Macedonians were known for at least 250 years before the Olympics in question. 
 

Alexander went to Olympia to participate  in the Olympics games and not to proved the Greekness of the Macedonians as doing today in the several conference.

I did not say that this was his intention.  All I said was that he had to "prove" that he was a Greek.

In an racial patriarchical society, like the Macedonian  how can be a King to be different from his citizens ?
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.
 
Dont forget thaht the Macedonian kings kept theirs  Royal tradition in combination with the Homeric epics of course.That did Alexander in the Olympics, just proved his Greek origin not only in the other Greeks but first to the Hellanodike.
 
The establishment of the Temenid kingship was of relatively late date.  Again what bolstered the kings to keep their identity was an already established Greek presence in the region.  If one studies the nature of the culture of the region, one finds that the peoples of the region were quite eclectic in their culture.  They accepted culture from all the surrounding cultures.  Hence, there was no real pressure for the kings to conform to the local culture, since the local culture was already mixed.  The Macedonians found keeping the Greek language as very useful since they were literally surrounded by Greeks.  The Greeks virtually owned the Thermaic Gulf, and the via Egnatia, regions of economic advantage.  As you study sociology, you will discover that the group having the economic advantage tends to linguistically absorb the group that does not.  It was advantageous for the Macedonian kings to retain their Greek identity.
 

I am not saying that at the time, when Macedonians conquered the Emathia that wipe off all the previous tribes. What do you believethe Macedonians were autochthonous?

  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. 

 

Also your example is not valid . Our issue is taking place in classic ages, not even in Hellenistic ages and certainly not hundred of years later as your example.
It should not even matter when my example takes place.  It should be just as valid no matter what time-period is discussed.

If the Macedonian royal house were "foreigners" rulling a native population, they would be viewed as such, having the usual encounters from the population, from time to time like a number of rebellions. Nothing like that happened.
 
For starters, we don't know if "nothing like that happened".  The early history of the Temenid state is so serieously lost or undocumented that such conclusions are truly "invalid".  If later history is any indication, the Macedonian kings did had to contend other Macedonians under their own local rulers such as that described by Thucydides.  For the rest, please see my other above comments.
 

What you mean with that? The Macedonian Kings helped from the colonies in order to gain mastery over an opponent ?

Nothing quite so military.  I'm talking about cultural and economic mastery.  Again, please see my comments above.

Colonies such as Methoni on the Thermaic gulf that would have had a close contact with Macedonia were tiny places, more trading posts if anything. If anything, they existed by the sufferance of the  Macedonian kings and they could hardly contemplate war against Macedonia in the absence of major allies Philip dispached with tremendous ease. Some peripheral traders may have become fluent in Greek, but certainly not the majority of the local population.
 
I'm not talking about the time of Philip.  The fortunes of the Macedonians waxed and waned even before him.  It would be a mistake to characterise those colonies as "more trading posts".  They were colonies in the full sense of the word.  In times past the Macedonians would not dare to try to conquer them.  They would have known that either their own military was not strong enough or that they would have faced strong reaction from other Greek cities.  There were brief periods when those cities came under Macedonian domination, but those cities did not permanently become Macedonian until the time of Philip.
 

Livy was my example. But even to accept your argument Alexander was clear as about the Macedonians before Philip era. The below  speech quoted from Arrian (7-9) and in my opinion gives the social and political situation before Phillip's reign.

 

For he found you vagabonds and destitute of means, most of you clad in hides, feeding a few sheep up the mountain sides, for the protection of which you had to fight with small success against Illyrians, Triballians, and the border Thracians. Instead of the hides he gave you cloaks to wear, and from the mountains he led you down into the plains, and made you capable of fighting the neighbouring barbarians, so that you were no longer compelled to preserve yourselves by trusting rather to the inaccessible strongholds than to your own valour.

I really don't see how this quote has anything to do with language  All Alexander was saying was that Philip found the Macedonians in a destitute state, having been beaten on all sides by other barbarians.  This was not always the case, and the Macedonians had better times before that. 
 
So I think that you must abstraction a lot from the 500 years or then you accept that the Macedonians spoken a Greek dialect and in 220 B.C. happened this that Livy said.
 
This is no abstraction.  Please see my comments above.  500 years, 400 years, 300 years, 200 years......from the perspective of the 8th century Greek presence, any of these length of time are adequate enough for the Macedonians to first be introduced to and eventually adopt Greek.  From my own perspective, the supplanting of "Macedonian" occurred in the 4th century BC by the koine.
 
As as about your claim in the IE theory why only Macedonians did not spread theirs language or civilization? But spread only the Greek civilization.
 
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.  It was during the Persian Empire, that Aramaic spread to its widest extent throughout the Empire from the southernmost tip of Egypt to India.  Aramaic was the language of communication and administration throughout the empire, and the biggest influence on Persian culture was Mesopotamian in origin.  Even when the Middle East became Hellenistic, it still found competition with Aramaic culture.  So, it is not, from an historical perspective, unique, that an invader spreads a culture, originally not its own.
 
And we are not speaking for the Africa but for the Mediterranean when any ancient nation spread its culture. Persian, Greeks and Romans.
 
It should not matter where I get my examples.  It is still a valid fact.
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: 09-Oct-2006 at 20:33
Originally posted by Sharrukin

]Umm, no.  The question is not that they are related forms or that they are of ultimate Greek origin.  The point, is that the form "Makednon" is only used for Dorians, and that the form "Makedon" is only used for Macedonians.  They are never used interchangebly.  Please do research on Herodotus.  He never mixes the two terms.  Hence, Makednians and Macedonians are two different peoples.


If you look into the text, you'll see that when he uses the 'term/variation' Makednos, he's talking about ancestry and not describing the 'tribe' as it may have later incorporated other peoples. Quite similar to describing the Spartans as Dorian or the Atheneans as Ionic.
Had the version 'Makedonos' been used strictly for the Dorian people, then we should find it used for the Lacedemonians also. But instead we find the distinction in 8.43 where he mentions both Doric and Makednos ancestry.

Originally posted by Sharrukin

]Please see my comments above.  500 years, 400 years, 300 years, 200 years......from the perspective of the 8th century Greek presence, any of these length of time are adequate enough for the Macedonians to first be introduced to and eventually adopt Greek.  From my own perspective, the supplanting of "Macedonian" occurred in the 4th century BC by the koine.


True the 'timeline' mentioned is more than sufficient for them to have adopted the language. But the problem is that if there had been an adoption of language, this would be in the Ionic dialect (from the colonies) and not in the Aeolic dialect as the Pella Katadesmos indicates. So the later adoption should be ruled as false.

Originally posted by Sharrukin

]Now some comments on Herodotus, himself.  When one reads his text, one wonders why Herodotus takes great pains to "prove" that Alexander was a Greek.  He does not use the same language in regards to Greek peoples and individuals.  In other words he does not go out to "prove" that those peoples and individuals already recognized as "Greek" were Greek.  Herodotus, therefore writes to "prove" that Alexander was a Greek, because he knew that his Greek readers would be skeptical of the Macedonian king's claim.  From their perspective, Alexander was a barbarian because he ruled a barbarian land.


Herodotus gives us far too much info on how the 'race' was composed to even suggest that he would he "take great pains" to prove any relation.

For example, in 1.146 he openly tells us about Ionian colonists marrying Carian women, he actually mocks their belief of being the 'best born'.
In 1.58 he tells us that the Helleness had united with a 'multitude of nations' that later comprised the 'Hellenic race'.

So why such a turn and strive to present the Macedonians as Hellenic when he's already previously given us his accounts of 'intermixing' with non-Helenes, what would be the reaosn not to tell us that the Macedonians were also part of a foreign 'stock' that had been Hellenized ?

It just doesn't agree with his previous approach.
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2006 at 21:39
If you look into the text, you'll see that when he uses the 'term/variation' Makednos, he's talking about ancestry and not describing the 'tribe' as it may have later incorporated other peoples.
 
I can at least agree that the term is used "about [Dorian] ancestry".
 
Had the version 'Makedonos' been used strictly for the Dorian people, then we should find it used for the Lacedemonians also. But instead we find the distinction in 8.43 where he mentions both Doric and Makednos ancestry.
 
But he does not, and that closes the case.  "Makednon" is only used in reference to Dorians.
 
True the 'timeline' mentioned is more than sufficient for them to have adopted the language. But the problem is that if there had been an adoption of language, this would be in the Ionic dialect (from the colonies) and not in the Aeolic dialect as the Pella Katadesmos indicates. So the later adoption should be ruled as false.
 
Hmmm.  Unless my research on the Pella Katadesmos is out of date, I had thought that it was in a dialect of Northwest Greek.  Actually this is not a problem.  We know that the Macedonians ultimately adopted the koine, which was ultimately of Attic/Ionic origin.  Thus far, the Pella Katadesmos is the single evidence of another Greek dialect spoken in Macedonia, and thus cannot be used to postulate the language of an entire population. 
 
Herodotus gives us far too much info on how the 'race' was composed to even suggest that he would he "take great pains" to prove any relation.

For example, in 1.146 he openly tells us about Ionian colonists marrying Carian women, he actually mocks their belief of being the 'best born'.
In 1.58 he tells us that the Helleness had united with a 'multitude of nations' that later comprised the 'Hellenic race'.
 
But, he never describes the Macedonians.  His concern was their kings.  His issue was to prove that they were Greeks.  In the end, the Ionians (and Aeolians) though "mixed" were still considered Greeks, as Herodotus emphatically states.  The same treatment is not given to the Macedonians.

So why such a turn and strive to present the Macedonians as Hellenic when he's already previously given us his accounts of 'intermixing' with non-Helenes, what would be the reaosn not to tell us that the Macedonians were also part of a foreign 'stock' that had been Hellenized?
 
We only know is that Greeks coming from there had to prove that they were Greek, and the only reason is that Macedonia was regarded as a barbarian land.   Nothing of the sort is heard about regarding "mixed" Aeolians and Ionians.   The Macedonian kings were regarded as Greeks not because they were Macedonians, but because they were descendants from a recognized Greek family of a recognized Greek city-state. 
 
It just doesn't agree with his previous approach.
 
His previous approach does not include "proving" that Ionians and Aeolians were Greeks.  He only reserves this "proof" to the Macedonian king, because his readers, "Greeks" (including Ionians and Aeolians) were skeptical of such a claim. 
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: 09-Oct-2006 at 22:55
But he does not, and that closes the case.  "Makednon" is only used in reference to Dorians.

I think you misunderstood what I said.
Had 'Makednos' been a signatory 'title' for all Doric stock, he would have either only used this or the Doric 'title' in 8.43. The fact that he uses both should indicate that 'Makednos' was not used for all Dorians in general, but rather as a 'title' only for the Makedones.

Hmmm.  Unless my research on the Pella Katadesmos is out of date, I had thought that it was in a dialect of Northwest Greek.  Actually this is not a problem.  We know that the Macedonians ultimately adopted the koine, which was ultimately of Attic/Ionic origin.  Thus far, the Pella Katadesmos is the single evidence of another Greek dialect spoken in Macedonia, and thus cannot be used to postulate the language of an entire population.


I might be mistaken, but I remember Hammond mentioning Aeolic being spoken in the region and Hoffman confirming that the katadesmos was written in such a dialect.
Anyway, the point is that while Koine was eventually adopted, the previous inscriptions make the whole 'influenced from colonists' theory quite problematic. Since even in the 'NW Hellenic" case, the possibility of being influenced from colonists should be rejected. The spoken dialect of the colonists is different from the population's and thus can not have been introduced to them, for they would has spoken and written in the 'adopted' form.

But, he never describes the Macedonians.  His concern was their kings.  His issue was to prove that they were Greeks.  In the end, the Ionians (and Aeolians) though "mixed" were still considered Greeks, as Herodotus emphatically states.  The same treatment is not given to the Macedonians.


True but this is beside the point I was trying to make. You suggested that he attempted to relate to the Makedones (for a reason I have yet to understand). If his intention was to prove relations with various 'barbarians' (in a probable attempt to promote some sence of, lets say.. purity) why mock the 'pure-blood' colonists for intermixing with the barbarian locals and insist on keeping from us the true barbaric origin of the Makedones?
It just doesn't make sence.

We only know is that Greeks coming from there had to prove that they were Greek, and the only reason is that Macedonia was regarded as a barbarian land.   Nothing of the sort is heard about regarding "mixed" Aeolians and Ionians.   The Macedonian kings were regarded as Greeks not because they were Macedonians, but because they were descendants from a recognized Greek family of a recognized Greek city-state.


Well we don't actually know that all Hellenes had to prove their 'background, since this is the only account we have. But I can accept the distinction between Makedones and all the inhabitants in general. This can be supported by Thucydides (a contemporary of Herodotus) who tells us 2.99

The country on the sea coast, now called Macedonia, was first acquired by Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his ancestors, originally Temenids from Argos.  This was effected by the expulsion from Pieria of the Pierians, who afterwards inhabited Phagres and other places under Mount Pangaeus, beyond the Strymon (indeed the country between Pangaeus and the sea is still called the Pierian gulf) of the Bottiaeans, at present neighbors of the Chalcidians, from Bottia,  [4] and by the acquisition in Paeonia of a narrow strip along the river Axius  extending to Pella and the sea; the district of Mygdonia, between the Axius and the Strymon, being also added by the expulsion of the Edonians.  [5] From Eordia also were driven the Eordians, most of whom perished, though a few of them still live round Physca, and the Almopians from Almopia.  [6] These Macedonians also conquered places belonging to the other tribes, which are still theirsAnthemus, Crestonia, Bisaltia, and much of Macedonia proper.  The whole is now called Macedonia, and at the time of the invasion of Sitalces, Perdiccas, Alexander's son, was the reigning king.


This text that informs us that 'most of Macedonia proper' is still (5th century) inhabited by 'foreigners' is most probably the very answer. The known existance of foreigners in the region was obviously the reason they demanded proff of his origin.
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Oct-2006 at 04:38
I think you misunderstood what I said.
Had 'Makednos' been a signatory 'title' for all Doric stock, he would have either only used this or the Doric 'title' in 8.43. The fact that he uses both should indicate that 'Makednos' was not used for all Dorians in general, but rather as a 'title' only for the Makedones.
 
In the earlier passage cited, Herodotus made it quite clear that Makednians (i.e. the Dorians of the Pindus) migrated to central Greece and then to the Peloponnese where they took the name "Dorians".  Nothing indicates in the former passage that any were left behind, and nothing indicates that there was a migration into Macedonia.  If we take the entire route of their migrations from their origin in Phthia, then, if we go by your reasoning, we should have Makednians all over Thessaly as well as central Greece.  Now, in the later passage in question, a possible hint to its meaning is the phrase "from Erineus and Pindus and the Dryopian region."  Erineus and Pindus were names of cities of Doris and Dryopis was the former name of the classical district of Doris.  The Makednians/Dorians came from Doris.  Hence the phrase "Dorikon te kai Makednon ethnos" does not necessarily mean that these are mutually exclusive terms but rather that they are inclusive terms, in the same way that a man can be described as "father and husband".  We note that the term "ethnos" is in the singular.
 
I might be mistaken, but I remember Hammond mentioning Aeolic being spoken in the region and Hoffman confirming that the katadesmos was written in such a dialect.
 
Yes, Hammond's ultimate conclusion was that the Macedonians spoke an Aeolic dialect, but not in reference to the katadesmos (it had not been discovered yet) but in reference to Hellanicus (contemporary of Herodotus), who wrote "Macedon, son of Aeolus".   

Anyway, the point is that while Koine was eventually adopted, the previous inscriptions make the whole 'influenced from colonists' theory quite problematic. Since even in the 'NW Hellenic" case, the possibility of being influenced from colonists should be rejected. The spoken dialect of the colonists is different from the population's and thus can not have been introduced to them, for they would has spoken and written in the 'adopted' form.
 
Again, this is not a problem.  We only have one inscription in this NW Greek dialect, which dates from 4th century BC.  One inscription is simply not enough to conclude that the entire population of Macedonia spoke NW Greek.  This simply goes beyond all reasoning.  It only indicates that there was a population of Greeks speaking NW Greek at Pella.  How this population of NW Greeks became residents in a region far away from the known regions of NW Greek speech is anyone's guess. 
 
True but this is beside the point I was trying to make. You suggested that he attempted to relate to the Makedones (for a reason I have yet to understand). If his intention was to prove relations with various 'barbarians' (in a probable attempt to promote some sence of, lets say.. purity) why mock the 'pure-blood' colonists for intermixing with the barbarian locals and insist on keeping from us the true barbaric origin of the Makedones?  It just doesn't make sence.
 
Apparently, it did not matter how diluted the Greek blood was.  By the beginning of the 8th century BC there was already a Greek self-identity and the Olympics, established in 776 BC is an early expression of that self-identity.  This self-identity did not go beyond the northern border of Thessaly, yet it did go into other non-Greek lands where Greek colonies were established, as is evident from the lists of Olympic victors, for just the first three centuries of its existence, alone.  Why the Macedonians were made an exception must have represented some fundamental point that contradicted whatever defined a Greek in those times.  If we take the basic meaning of "barbarian" the single most important factor was linguistic.  There is at least one passage in Plutarch's Antony, 27.4-5 which lists "Macedonian" along with Ethiopian, Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic (Syriac), and Egyptian, as languages Cleopatra spoke. 

This text that informs us that 'most of Macedonia proper' is still (5th century) inhabited by 'foreigners' is most probably the very answer. The known existance of foreigners in the region was obviously the reason they demanded proff of his origin.
 
What speaks against this idea is that the Greeks knew that Alexander was "Macedonian", not Crestonian or Bisaltian (Thracian tribes) or Anthemian (unknown affiliation). 
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: 10-Oct-2006 at 09:00
About Olympic games:

Hellanodikai (Greekness judges) were there from the beginning of the games that is about 3c BEFORE Alexander's participation? Why?

Apparently because there were many peoples living amongst Greeks who weren't Greek (according to that time's criteria)

Did Hallanodikai use language to determine people's Greekness? Of cource NOT. Because it would be a very easy test and no commission was needed for that test. Hellanodikai used "blood" test. One had to be Greek by blood (ancestry) in order to participate in the games. This is exactly what Alexander did. He proved that he was Greek by descent. He did this ONLY for him (and not for all Macedonians) because HE WASN'T ASKED TO DO SO and because it would be stupid because NO REGION IN GREECE WAS PURE GREEK (Macedonia included).

Aboud Makednian <> Makedonian: When Alexander said that he was "King of Makedonians" did he exclude Makednoi (those Dorians' descents)? Wasn't he King of Greeks = Makednoi (who settled Macedonia with his ancestors) ??
Linguistically, ONLY people who don't know Greek could differenciate those terms. Yet, Perseus does do this differenciation and this is a real SURPRISE for me! My answer is that Perseus does this differentiation INTENTIONALLY because I cannot imagine that they really are that IGNORAMUS.

Let me said also this: Very (realy very) often, Homer cuts vowels from words for RYTHM reasons. So, he wrote "makednees" ( = μακεδνής, do I have permission to write in Greek?) instead of makedanees (μακεδανής). Herodotus followed Homer's word(s) and wrote makednoi instead of Makedanoi > Makedonoi > Makedones. But he knew that 'dn' was not very Greek sound.

I have many other words to say, but please all, avoid long posts!
Istor
Macedonian, therefore Greek!
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 01:50
About Olympic games:

Hellanodikai (Greekness judges) were there from the beginning of the games that is about 3c BEFORE Alexander's participation? Why?

Apparently because there were many peoples living amongst Greeks who weren't Greek (according to that time's criteria)

Did Hallanodikai use language to determine people's Greekness? Of cource NOT. Because it would be a very easy test and no commission was needed for that test. Hellanodikai used "blood" test. One had to be Greek by blood (ancestry) in order to participate in the games. This is exactly what Alexander did. He proved that he was Greek by descent. He did this ONLY for him (and not for all Macedonians) because HE WASN'T ASKED TO DO SO and because it would be stupid because NO REGION IN GREECE WAS PURE GREEK (Macedonia included).
 
It was rather counterproductive for a Greek city-state to sponsor an athlete without first checking his "bloodline".  This athlete, being a free citizen was usually someone of family with some history of citizenship.  Assuming that there is truth there was still a non-Greek population in the (especially) original home territories (be it a helot or perioersi, or perhaps "Pelasgic" population), a Greek city-state sending a non-Greek to the Olympics was at worst sacrilegious and at best an embarrassment.  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.  Thus far nobody has come forward documenting that an athlete was rejected for being a non-Greek.  This would be front-page scandal in an historical context.  What we mostly have are stories of cheating athletes. 
 
Now, enter Alexander I.  The Greeks had been familiar with him for quite a while having been, said by Herodotus, trying to help the Greeks against the Persians.  They already knew him as the king of the Macedonians.  In essence, a state could not sponsor him, because he was the state.   Having a "royal line" it was convenient for him to prove his "Greekness" by tracing his descent from a Greek royal line.  He came to the Olympics, already, uncomfirmable, and justifiably challenged because the athletes knew that his people were barbarians. 
 
This is in distinction with Greek states which had kingships.  Now, it is a mistake to characterise all Greek states with monarchies as "constitutional monarchies" such as that of Sparta.  There were other states which had kingships which we don't know their constitutional makeup such as that of the Cyprian kings or even the kings of Cyrene among others.  The "tyranny" of the Macedonian rulers, can only be compared to the tyranny of Greek states such as Athens or Corinth, yet despite their tyrannies, the latter two were still sending Olympic athletes, without being challenged.  It is therefore a mistake to use "kingship" as an indicator as to why the Greeks considered the Macedonians, barbarians.

Aboud Makednian <> Makedonian: When Alexander said that he was "King of Makedonians" did he exclude Makednoi (those Dorians' descents)? Wasn't he King of Greeks = Makednoi (who settled Macedonia with his ancestors) ??
 
I've already shown that Makednian was only used for Dorians.

Linguistically, ONLY people who don't know Greek could differenciate those terms. Yet, Perseus does do this differenciation and this is a real SURPRISE for me! My answer is that Perseus does this differentiation INTENTIONALLY because I cannot imagine that they really are that IGNORAMUS.
 
We've had an issue with this in the "Epirus" thread.  It is very counterproductive for you to judge the work of many experts on the Greek language as merely that of "ignoramus".  They make that differentiation because they knew that the term was only used for Dorians.  

Let me said also this: Very (realy very) often, Homer cuts vowels from words for RYTHM reasons. So, he wrote "makednees" ( = μακεδνής, do I have permission to write in Greek?) instead of makedanees (μακεδανής). Herodotus followed Homer's word(s) and wrote makednoi instead of Makedanoi > Makedonoi > Makedones. But he knew that 'dn' was not very Greek sound.
 
Yes you may use Greek as long as it is used to prove a point in conformity with the thread topic.
 
"Makednon" is a very Greek word, the natural outcome of Homeric makednos.  There was no "cutting" necessary.  Herodotus was quite specific locating the Dorians in the Pindus where they took the name "Makednians" because they inhabited a mountainous region, a "tall" region (i.e. "the heights"), hence they were "highlanders". 

I have many other words to say, but please all, avoid long posts!
 
I have a very poor tendency of answering each post, point for point.  I'd be more than happy to answer with as many brief posts as possible, as long as others keep their posts as brief as possible.  But, alas, if someone has much to say, I must answer with as much complete information as I can provide.
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: 11-Oct-2006 at 09:15
In the earlier passage cited, Herodotus made it quite clear that Makednians (i.e. the Dorians of the Pindus) migrated to central Greece and then to the Peloponnese where they took the name "Dorians".  Nothing indicates in the former passage that any were left behind, and nothing indicates that there was a migration into Macedonia.  If we take the entire route of their migrations from their origin in Phthia, then, if we go by your reasoning, we should have Makednians all over Thessaly as well as central Greece.  Now, in the later passage in question, a possible hint to its meaning is the phrase "from Erineus and Pindus and the Dryopian region."  Erineus and Pindus were names of cities of Doris and Dryopis was the former name of the classical district of Doris.  The Makednians/Dorians came from Doris.  Hence the phrase "Dorikon te kai Makednon ethnos" does not necessarily mean that these are mutually exclusive terms but rather that they are inclusive terms, in the same way that a man can be described as "father and husband".  We note that the term "ethnos" is in the singular.

I must admit that I don't see the problem nor understand your insistance on something totally clear.

True he does mention the 'movements' you've sited above but from quote in question it is clear that only the part of Dorian stock that inhabited Makedonia bore the 'title' Makednos.
Why would a regional term be applied to the Doric inhabitants of Peloponessos he just mentions above (Corinthians, Lacedemonians..etc) ?


The fact that he is not attempting to represent the entire Doric population with the 'title' Makednos, but rather only those that came from "Erineus and Pindus" and the Dryopian region, becomes clear when we see the original text. In that we find the use of the words "te kai" which clearly indicate the distinction between the two 'terms'.
To assist you in understanding this, all needed, is to look just one line later where he says "Herakleos te kai Melieon". So unless you'll propose that Herakles was a Malian (which we know he was not) or that the two 'terms' (Herakles, Malian) are used inclusively (which they do not), the use of the words "te kai" indicate distinction and not the inclusive use of the terms as you suggest.

Yes, Hammond's ultimate conclusion was that the Macedonians spoke an Aeolic dialect, but not in reference to the katadesmos (it had not been discovered yet) but in reference to Hellanicus (contemporary of Herodotus), who wrote "Macedon, son of Aeolus"


I didn't say Hammond 'studied' the Katadesmos, Hoffman did. I just mentioned that he suggested that the dialect of the region was Aeolic.

Again, this is not a problem.  We only have one inscription in this NW Greek dialect, which dates from 4th century BC.  One inscription is simply not enough to conclude that the entire population of Macedonia spoke NW Greek.  This simply goes beyond all reasoning.  It only indicates that there was a population of Greeks speaking NW Greek at Pella.  How this population of NW Greeks became residents in a region far away from the known regions of NW Greek speech is anyone's guess.


How is this not a problem ?
We don't have one inscription but several more shorter ones that depict the dialect, it was actually based on these shorter inscriptions that the theory of Aeolic was supported.
But while the exact dialect either Aeolic or NW is not a totally rellevent issue, this is where the problem begins.
These inscriptions (which do not all come from a single site) indicate that the dialect in question, even if adopted (at some unknown to us time), is in contrast to the dialectic form spoken by the 'southern' colonists. So this clearly indicates that if there was some form of Hellenization, it goes further back in time and not during the timeline discussed in this topic.
(to avoid misunderstandings, I am talking about Makedonia proper and not the lands included after the expansion during Philippos' reign)


Apparently, it did not matter how diluted the Greek blood was.  By the beginning of the 8th century BC there was already a Greek self-identity and the Olympics, established in 776 BC is an early expression of that self-identity.  This self-identity did not go beyond the northern border of Thessaly, yet it did go into other non-Greek lands where Greek colonies were established, as is evident from the lists of Olympic victors, for just the first three centuries of its existence, alone.  Why the Macedonians were made an exception must have represented some fundamental point that contradicted whatever defined a Greek in those times.  If we take the basic meaning of "barbarian" the single most important factor was linguistic.


But the question still remains unanswered to.
Since as we see through the text, Herodotus has absolutely no problem making clear reference to 'intermixing' with 'barbarians', why would he attempt to hide the possible 'barbaric' origin here, why wouldn't there be a clarification in who was and who wasn't considered of Hellenic background ?

This could very well be the same mentality, since he undoubtably had knowledge of the situation described in Thucydides above (foreigners residing in Makedonia).

But since you mentioned the victor's list, we find that it makes first account of a Thessalian (that you agree were Hellenic) some 250 years after the establishment of the 'custom'. Should we also come to the conclusion that they were looked upon as 'barbarians' or could there be some other reason, like poor performance ?

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.

There is at least one passage in Plutarch's Antony, 27.4-5 which lists "Macedonian" along with Ethiopian, Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic (Syriac), and Egyptian, as languages Cleopatra spoke.


Hmm, sorry but this is a total misinterpretation of the text.
Plutarch states:

There was sweetness also in the tones of her voice; and her tongue, like an instrument of many strings, she could readily turn to whatever language she pleased, so that in her interviews with Barbarians she very seldom had need of an interpreter, but made her replies to most of them herself and unassisted, whether they were Ethiopians, Troglodytes, Hebrews, Arabians, Syrians, Medes or Parthians.

Nay, it is said that she knew the speech of many other peoples also, although the kings of Egypt before her had not even made an effort to learn the native language, and some actually gave up their Macedonian dialect.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Antony*.html


No reference to a language and especially a 'barbaric' one listed next to Arabic..etc, but rather an account of former kings abandoning their Makedonian dialect.

What speaks against this idea is that the Greeks knew that Alexander was "Macedonian", not Crestonian or Bisaltian (Thracian tribes) or Anthemian (unknown affiliation).

Exactly how did they know?
We have no account of him introducing himself, nothing refering to him stating his origin prior to the other 'athlete's' rejection. For all we know, he may have simply said 'hey, I came to race'.... the text indicates nothing that would suggest that they rejected him due to his stating 'Makedonian' background, but rather that they required proof of his Hellenic origin.





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: 11-Oct-2006 at 09:24
No.
Hellanodikai were there to judge people's Greekness. Greeks had and have very concern about right names. Hellanodikai means "greekness judges", not games' watchers. They were there to abort non-Greek people. Of course they had their own criteria for this. Thus, what I wrote about Alexander, his language and his Greekness is right.

No.
Athlets weren't sponsored or sent by cities but by themselves. The participants weren't city-states but persons-athlets. Thus no-city-state worried about athlets' Greekness but themselves and Hellanidokai.

No, Hellanodikai didn't know that Alexander was a King nor Macedonian. He saw a man who claimed that he was from Macedonia, an UNKNOWN region, and claimed that the was Greek and King. (if they were modern Greeks they would say: "starxidia mas" NO OFFEND, so please don't erase this parentesis!). But nobody cared about officers or regions. He propably was the first Macedonian who participated in the games, that was a real challenge for Hellanodikai.

Macedonians were widely known to sounthern Greeks ONLY AFTER and BECAUSE of HERODOTUS histories (450 BC). That's why Herodotus repeatedly said that they were Greek. Southern Greek athletes argued about his Greekness because they didn't know Macedonia at all.

But Alexander said that he was "King of Macedonians"! Not "King of Makednoi"! Despite his people were Makednoi amongst others!! This means that both terms were undistinguishable.

If any time in the future I want to show Perseus scholars' errors, the list will be numerous, believe me. To begin with, in that passage of "they inhabited Pindus, a region called Macedonian ... " the error is so obvious that it is INTENTIONAL by definition. Error free is ONLY God and Pope.

"There was no "cutting" necessary"
Do you really know what am I talking about?
Yes there was RYTHM reasons for Homer to write makednees instead of makedanees. (ee = eta).
Istor
Macedonian, therefore Greek!
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: 11-Oct-2006 at 11:25
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
 
Originally posted by Istor the Macedonian

Hellanodikai means "greekness judges
 
The word Hellanodikai means "judges of the Greeks".
 
 
 
 
 
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
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: 11-Oct-2006 at 11:37

 

Originally posted by Sharrukin

Umm, no.  The question is not that they are related forms or that they are of ultimate Greek origin.  The point, is that the form "Makednon" is only used for Dorians, and that the form "Makedon" is only used for Macedonians.  They are never used interchangebly.  Please do research on Herodotus.  He never mixes the two terms.  Hence, Makednians and Macedonians are two different peoples.

 

Now, there is no dispute that "Makedon" probably comes from "Makednon".  However, such names are not always indicative of ethnic origin.  If we take Slavic tribal names, for instance, we find that many come from Germanic (such as Slezhani, Spryevane), Iranic (Serb, Croat), and even Turkic (such as Bulgarian) origin.  It is therefore, from a much more wider historical context, not so significant, that the name "Macedonian" is of Greek origin.  Even today, Ethiopians bare a Greek name, but nobody says that they are Greek.

 

From the skeptic's point of view therefore, the background of the Macedonians is of a barbarous group which came into contact with the Makednian Dorians probably in the Pindus.  These barbarians were dominated by the Dorians and ultimately took the name "Macedonian", in the same way that the Slavonic Antes got their name from the Iranian Antsai. 

The derivation came from the linguistics , well knower of  the ancient Greek language. Do you have have anything else as about the suffix mak ?

You said for mixing tribes. Why the ancient writers never mentioned that ?

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."

 

 

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. 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.

 

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.

 

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.

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 ?

 

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.

 

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.

 
So we have one other dating connection
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.

 

 

 

================================================================

Finally  I think that some answers(like Helelnodike)  cover me ,so I dont want to repeat them. Actually agree that the long posts is tediously and usually we guide out of the initial purpose. Like the language of the ancient Macedonians.
 
@Istor the problem of the translations is huge.Like my English grammarLOL


Edited by akritas - 11-Oct-2006 at 11:44
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 01:02
Because of the volume of responses what I've written, I ask those who have responded to please be patient until I am able to answer all the responses.  This may take several posts.
 
logan
 
I must admit that I don't see the problem nor understand your insistance on something totally clear.

True he does mention the 'movements' you've sited above but from quote in question it is clear that only the part of Dorian stock that inhabited Makedonia bore the 'title' Makednos.
 
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. 

Why would a regional term be applied to the Doric inhabitants of Peloponessos he just mentions above (Corinthians, Lacedemonians..etc)?
 
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. 

The fact that he is not attempting to represent the entire Doric population with the 'title' Makednos, but rather only those that came from "Erineus and Pindus" and the Dryopian region, becomes clear when we see the original text.  In that we find the use of the words "te kai" which clearly indicate the distinction between the two 'terms'.

To assist you in understanding this, all needed, is to look just one line later where he says "Herakleos te kai Melieon". So unless you'll propose that Herakles was a Malian (which we know he was not) or that the two 'terms' (Herakles, Malian) are used inclusively (which they do not), the use of the words "te kai" indicate distinction and not the inclusive use of the terms as you suggest.
 
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.
 
How is this not a problem ?
We don't have one inscription but several more shorter ones that depict the dialect, it was actually based on these shorter inscriptions that the theory of Aeolic was supported.
But while the exact dialect either Aeolic or NW is not a totally rellevent issue, this is where the problem begins.
These inscriptions (which do not all come from a single site) indicate that the dialect in question, even if adopted (at some unknown to us time), is in contrast to the dialectic form spoken by the 'southern' colonists. So this clearly indicates that if there was some form of Hellenization, it goes further back in time and not during the timeline discussed in this topic.
(to avoid misunderstandings, I am talking about Makedonia proper and not the lands included after the expansion during Philippos' reign).
 
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. 
But the question still remains unanswered to.
Since as we see through the text, Herodotus has absolutely no problem making clear reference to 'intermixing' with 'barbarians', why would he attempt to hide the possible 'barbaric' origin here, why wouldn't there be a clarification in who was and who wasn't considered of Hellenic background ?
 
It may well be that since the Greeks were a patriarchal society, they only count as "Greek" a mixed person with a "Greek father", hence the "blood-line" is through the father.  Since the "Greeks" of the Archaic period were much concerned about property and its disposal thereof to descendants, thus marking them off as "citizens" and "free men", the Olympic athlete was typically a citizen with a family owning some property.  Descent was easily confirmable.  How all those archaic Greeks of various backgrounds came to a collective understanding of their self-identity is problematic at best.  The only thing that is definitive, was that they all spoke the same language despite sometimes great dialectic differences.

But since you mentioned the victor's list, we find that it makes first account of a Thessalian (that you agree were Hellenic) some 250 years after the establishment of the 'custom'. Should we also come to the conclusion that they were looked upon as 'barbarians' or could there be some other reason, like poor performance?
 
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. 

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.
 
The Macedonians were already present in the region in the 8th century BC.  Hesiod (c. 720/700 BC) already located them in Pieria.  Hence, since Greeks were already in contact with the Macedonians in Pieria, the Macedonians were aware of the Olympics:  734 BC - 476 BC (the latest plausible date for Alexander at Olympia) = 258 years.  Not much different in time-scale from the first victory of a Thessalian, but again there is other mitigating data showing the Hellenism of the Thessalians.

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.
 
Ummm, no.  The Macedonians were not a part of any pan-Hellenic organization or alliance until Alexander I became an Olympic athlete.  Taking the other factors into mind, we find that:
 
1.  the Macedonians had no interest into Greek affairs until Alexander I.
2.  the Greeks had no interest in the Macedonians.
 
There is at least one passage in Plutarch's Antony, 27.4-5 which lists "Macedonian" along with Ethiopian, Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic (Syriac), and Egyptian, as languages Cleopatra spoke.


Hmm, sorry but this is a total misinterpretation of the text.
Plutarch states:

There was sweetness also in the tones of her voice; and her tongue, like an instrument of many strings, she could readily turn to whatever language she pleased, so that in her interviews with Barbarians she very seldom had need of an interpreter, but made her replies to most of them herself and unassisted, whether they were Ethiopians, Troglodytes, Hebrews, Arabians, Syrians, Medes or Parthians.

Nay, it is said that she knew the speech of many other peoples also, although the kings of Egypt before her had not even made an effort to learn the native language, and some actually gave up their Macedonian dialect.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Antony*.html


No reference to a language and especially a 'barbaric' one listed next to Arabic..etc, but rather an account of former kings abandoning their Makedonian dialect.
 
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."
 
I have another similar quote from a book.  Okay, let's table this quote until we can get a Greek text, for proofreading.  Agreed?
 
Exactly how did they know?
We have no account of him introducing himself, nothing refering to him stating his origin prior to the other 'athlete's' rejection. For all we know, he may have simply said 'hey, I came to race'.... the text indicates nothing that would suggest that they rejected him due to his stating 'Makedonian' background, but rather that they required proof of his Hellenic origin.
 
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"> 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?
 
Exactly how did they know?
We have no account of him introducing himself, nothing refering to him stating his origin prior to the other 'athlete's' rejection. For all we know, he may have simply said 'hey, I came to race'.... the text indicates nothing that would suggest that they rejected him due to his stating 'Makedonian' background, but rather that they required proof of his Hellenic origin.
 
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". 
 
Again, I must insist that all respondents please wait until I've addressed the points from the other respondents that came immediately after logan, and before this response of mine.  This will keep the flow of the thread comprehensible.  This may take a day or so.
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 02:47

Istor the Macedonian

No.
Hellanodikai were there to judge people's Greekness. Greeks had and have very concern about right names. Hellanodikai means "greekness judges", not games' watchers. They were there to abort non-Greek people. Of course they had their own criteria for this. Thus, what I wrote about Alexander, his language and his Greekness is right.

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.

No.
Athlets weren't sponsored or sent by cities but by themselves. The participants weren't city-states but persons-athlets. Thus no-city-state worried about athlets' Greekness but themselves and Hellanidokai.

The documentation I have says otherwise.

No, Hellanodikai didn't know that Alexander was a King nor Macedonian. He saw a man who claimed that he was from Macedonia, an UNKNOWN region, and claimed that the was Greek and King. (if they were modern Greeks they would say: "starxidia mas" NO OFFEND, so please don't erase this parentesis!). But nobody cared about officers or regions. He propably was the first Macedonian who participated in the games, that was a real challenge for Hellanodikai.

Macedonia was not an unknown region. The Greeks knew about Macedonians since the 8th century BC.

Macedonians were widely known to sounthern Greeks ONLY AFTER and BECAUSE of HERODOTUS histories (450 BC). That's why Herodotus repeatedly said that they were Greek. Southern Greek athletes argued about his Greekness because they didn't know Macedonia at all.

The Greeks knew about Macedonians since at least the first Greek colonies were planted in Macedonia in the 8th century BC. Hesiod (c. 720/700 BC) certainly knew about them. Hecateaus (c. 500 BC) knew about them too.


But Alexander said that he was "King of Macedonians"! Not "King of Makednoi"! Despite his people were Makednoi amongst others!! This means that both terms were undistinguishable.

Please read my other posts for how Herodotus uses Makednon. It is never used for Macedonians.

If any time in the future I want to show Perseus scholars' errors, the list will be numerous, believe me. To begin with, in that passage of "they inhabited Pindus, a region called Macedonian ... " the error is so obvious that it is INTENTIONAL by definition. Error free is ONLY God and Pope.

Nobody's perfect (except God) but you'd be hardpressed to convince people to ignore a body of patient scholarship by many experts.

"There was no "cutting" necessary"
Do you really know what am I talking about?
Yes there was RYTHM reasons for Homer to write makednees instead of makedanees. (ee = eta).

Even if I was to agree that there were "rythm reasons" for Homer to use the term makednos, there was no rythm reason for Herodotus to use the term Makednon.

Now I have more script-blocking problems, which won't allow me to fix my messages properly.  Again, sorry for the formatting confusion.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 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 0.281 seconds.