Makedonika 1995 (pp.149-58) by Eugene Borza

Mankind,"1 there has been a narrowing interpretation of Alexander the Great's vision. Recent scholarship

Tarn's conception of homonoia was never accepted by some scholars, and within five years of its

publication in the Cambridge Ancient History, Ulrich Wilcken attacked it as unsupported by the evidence.2

consciousness, and into some scholarly opinion, as well.3

criticism and proved that the "homonoic" vision of Alexander was mainly a product of Tarn's unacceptable

squeezing of sources. An analysis of the language of Arrian at 7.11.9-the famous prayer of reconciliation at

"harmony" referred to in Alexander's prayer4 is limited to the Persians and Macedonians and is not

inclusive of the whole human race.5

Tarn's World Brotherhood.6 Wilcken argued that, while the king had no intention of uniting all the races of

Historians, the full version of which appeared in the Journal of Hellenic Studies (1980) under the title

uniting the races of Europe and Asia must be seen as ad hoc solutions to immediate problems, not as a part

of a general Policy.7

1 1.Tarn in CAH 6 (1926), Proc. of the British Academy (1933), and Alexander the Great (Cambridge,

2 E.g., Alexander der Grosse (1931), English trans. by G. C. Richards, notes by E. N. Borza (New York,

3 E.g., C.A. Robinson, "The Extraordinary Ideas of Alexander the Great," AHR 62 (1957) 326-44.

4 The publication by Stadter and Boulter of a microform concordance to Arrian has greatly simplified

5 The version Arrian gives us probably is verbatim or near-verbatim of what Alexander actually said. Of

6 Alex. the Great (1967) 246-56.

7 Bosworth's views have not persuaded everyone, especially those for whom old habits die hard; e.g.

N.G.L. Hammond in Alexander the Great. King, Commander and Statesman (1980) and elsewhere.

see precisely what Alexander intended in the way of hellenization, and what he consciously instituted as

conclusion (though not the details of his arguments)8 that the origin of the Macedonians lies in the pool of

already argued in print and do not wish to take up further here.9

number of Greeks, and court practices were often hellenized,10 resulting from the influence of Greeks in the

8 As expressed in History of Macedonia I and II (Oxford, 1972-79) passim, and more recently in The

9 See my "Origins of the Macedonian Royal House," Hesperia, Suppl. 19 (1982) 7-13, [see article 5 in this

volume] and In the Shadow of Olympus. The Emergence of Macedon (Princeton, 1990) 80-84 and 110-13.

10 E.g., the Macedonian version of the symposium; see my "The Symposium at Alexander's Court,"

Archaia Makedonia 3 (1983) 4555, [see article 9 in this volume] and "Anaxarchus and Callisthenes.

Academic Intrigue at Alexander's Court," Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honor of Charles F. Edson

Egyptian Meroë.11

None of this adds up to a policy of hellenization. Perhaps we can see something in the relationship

to that magisterial data bank of Alexander's reign, the Das Alexanderreich of Helmut Berve, published

several categories of information about these persons, such as ethnic background and cursus honorum. A

view expressed by Ernst Badian in his paper, "Greeks and Macedonians."12 Badian showed that in

11 F.L. Holt, Alexander and Bactria, Mnemosyne Suppl. 104 (Leiden, 1988), and the papers of Holt and

12 Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times. Studies in the History of Art 10,

Alexander's inner circle, his hetairoi, would appear to replicate the pattern. Of the sixty-five or so

men named as hetairoi, nine are Greek, including three mainlanders. Of the nine, four owed their positions

associated with the king either in his inner circle or in important military and administrative positions.13

There is one exception, however, the faithful and competent Greek grammateus Eumenes (#317) of Cardia,

Macedonians.14

Minor, their status under the reigns of Philip and Alexander has been much debated.15 Fortunately, for my

13 There are limits to such a statistics-based argument. We are prisoners of the evidence that has survived,

roles in Alexander's court is relative to the total number of names that have survived. Some persons friendly

determine the possible total number of those who served Alexander in administrative and other capacities

appointments can we be reasonably certain that we have close to total numbers; in the case of the satrapies

the pattern of a tiny number of Greeks relative to the total is confirmed. One must act prudently on this

14 E.g., Plut. Eum. 3.1; 8.1; 18.1; Diod. 18.60.1-3, 62.7 and 19.13.1-2. For present purposes I have not cited

15 E. Badian, "Alexander and the Greeks of Asia," Ancient Society and Institutions. Studies Presented to

Victor Ehrenberg (Oxford, 1966) 3796. Also see, e.g., V. Ehrenberg, Alexander and the Greeks (Oxford,

1938) 1-51; Tarn, Alexander 2: App. 7; and AJ. Heisserer, Alexander the Great and the Greeks. The

Epigraphic Evidence (Norman, 1980), conclusions at 230-37.

This place is called a forum because we DISCUSS about matters.

Next time dear Macedonian, make your point and post a link to the supporting theory. Don't copy/paste. You have been warned about this before. Clear?

Kids, you make some interesting points but there're some unsupported arguments as well in your post. What does "Hellenized" mean for example? Who were the "original" Greeks? In my mind the "ethnicity" one belongs to, is determined by cultural rather than bloodline standards. So "Hellenized" is as good (or even better, since they "volunteered" ) as "Hellenas".

What I believe is that "ethnicity" in ancient Greece was not as we perceive it to be today and there were no strong links between the various "Greeks" of the era. Macedonians were one of the Greek clans in the periphery of the Greek world regarded by their southern brethrens as semi-barbaric. After all we all need someone to call "inferior". Moreover, the Macedonian type of government, monarchy, wasn't well regarded by the other Greek powers so that gave them another point of difference.

In the end, it doesn't really matter if they were Greek or not. What matters is that they spread Greek culture and language all the way to India and were the spark that started another chapter in the history of culture, the Hellenistic one.

re:  ancient Macedonians - I think by our modern definitions - they would be considered every bit as much Greek as the Delians, Samians, Ephesians, Cretans Epirotes and residents of so many other parts of the Greek world.  We have discussed rather recently the idea that - to the ancient greeks, the idea of being greek applied only to a very few city states - and that they considered everyone else to be a foreigner "barbaros" -

re: Alexander and Hellenism

In one way, perhaps, the premise presented is correct.  Alexander did not care about Hellenism because Hellenism as a concept did not really appear until after his death - when people began to analyze what exactly it was that he had accomplished.  The idea of Hellenism has developed in the ensuing years as a term to explain the spread of Greek culture across a huge area due to his conquests - whether or not he intended to do so.  To argue that it did not penetrate the borders of unconquered regions of Bactria or India is really stretching to make a point.  That Pergamum, Alexandria (Egypt), Palmyra and Ephesus and so many other cities all benefited greatly from this rich cultural fusion is undeniable 

From the Columbia Encyclopedia:  http://www.bartleby.com/65/he/Hellenist.html - http://www.bartleby.com/65/he/Hellenist.html

I would have to disagree both with the concept that Alexander and his empire  were not not responsible for the spread of Greek culture and that he did not care about propagating this culture.  He quite specifically founded cities across his realm, named after himself - with the intention of transplanting Greek culture into those areas.  In these cities he began to establish schools to teach Greek and the ideas and philosophies of Greek culture.  He was not at all concerned with the ethnicities of the students -  but that they began to share a common culture.  He married many of his Macedonian soldiers to Persian women and settled them in his new cities - again - his goal was a common cultural thread - something that would unite the various groups in his empire. 

The article that you reproduced here seems to contradict itself somewhat as well:

As far as I know, there is not a single piece of evidence for the non-Greeknes of the ancient Macedonians. On the contrary, all evidence we've got seems to imply a less sophisticated Greek group (possibly of Doric origin, that is what the ancient Greek writers seem to believe themselves, although the Greek dialect spoken in Macedonia in these days included more Aeolic elements) that settled in the Northern parts of the peninsula and was not viewed well by their genetical brethen of the south. The same scheme we find regarding the Molosses (Epirot Greeks) and several other Greeks that remained out of the ultra-sophisticated main body of the Greek city-states.

That being said, I do believe that those we call "Macedonians" included many non-Greeks (genetically) elements, especially Thracian and Illyrian. Since we are talking about a kingdom, I wish to remind you that kings and emperors defined the nation of their subjects, not vice versa. So, since the (of undisputed Greek origin) Argead house ruled over the Macedonians, it is safe to assume that they provided their subjects with the "ethnic" definition and not the other way around. The Argeads ruled over the Macedonians, and those genetically were Greeks and non-Greeks.

Culturally, though, they all were very much Greeks. They spoke Greek, upheld Greek customs and laws, worshiped the Dodekatheon, had a distinctive Greek culture in general... they even conquered the world in the name of the Greeks.

There is no dispute on this, I think. The various comedians who are acting as revisionist historians, are just trying to press some political claims and that's the deal behind the very recent effort to revise the history of the ancient Macedonians.

I never before went to that thread, until now, but I think its focused on a relationship between ancient Macedonians and the modern state of FYROM.   Really, that is beyond the scope of this thread.  I will address the following comments however:

The most ancient evidence from Greek narrative history certainly points to the contrary.  When Herodotus takes pains to prove to his readers that the Macedonians were Greeks, he related a story about the Macedonian king Alexander I who was judged a "barbarian" by the Greek athletes.  It took a geneology to prove his right to compete in the Olympics.  The interesting thing here (among other things) is that Herodotus, 60 years after the fact, was still trying to prove their Greekness.   But this is only the tip of the iceberg.

On the contrary!!!  The idea that the Macedonians were "possibly of Doric origin" only goes back to the misunderstood idea posed by Herodotus.  He didn't say that the Macedonians were of Dorian origin but rather that the Dorians were of Macedonian origin.  The idea that "Aeolic elements" were present originated with Hellanicus of Lesbos, a contemporary of Herodotus who implies an Aeolian origin of the Macedonians.  Were they pre-Dorians or Aeolians?   Herodotus of Halicarnassus had Dorian heritage while Hellanicus of Lesbos had Aeolian heritage.  Either one could have been looking at the Macedonians with their own biases.  Could the Macedonians have tried to portray themselves to each for favor?  Actually the earliest evidence, that of Hesiod (c. 720 BC) doesn't even relate "Macedon" with "Dorus" or "Aeolus".  While the latter two were of the line of "Hellen", "Macedon" wasn't of the line, but rather from a collateral line.  "Macedon" was cousin to the Hellenes, but he himself was not.  The reality is that until 1994, the evidence from Greek inscriptions in Macedonia were brief enough in context to render it difficult to decide which dialect of Greek was spoken in Macedonia.  In 1994 however, a tablet was discovered at Pella of 4th century BC date which gives an entire Greek text.  The dialect was neither Aeolian nor Dorian, but rather related to Northwest Greek.  In either case the evidence from inscriptional evidence only points to Greek being spoken there from the late 5th century BC.  The evidence of Greek in Thrace was even more ancient, but nobody is going to say that the Thracians were Greeks.  And again, this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Care must be taken as to what is meant by "kingdom", since the Greeks also recognized a "land" of Macedonia, of which the "kingdom" was a part of.  The Greeks accepted the identity of the Macedonian kings as Greek (only by 498 BC), however Macedonia was not recognized as a "Greek" land until the time of the successors, when Thessaly, a Greek land, was already an integral part of the kingdom, since the time of Philip.  Strabo, in the 1st century BC did write that "Macedonia was part of Greece" but also wrote that Macedonia was inhabited by "barbarians".  Nothing is mentioned about Greeks.  So, then, while "kings and emperors" can "define the nation" it is not so concrete, especially with classical thought. 

The origin of the Argead house is very much disputed in scholarly circles. 

1.  The Greek culture only dates from sometime between 650 and 550 BC.  Before that, the culture was Illyrian, and even before that, the culture was Brygian.  Mycenaean artefacts found in Macedonia are considered either as imitations or as imports in the literature.

2.  It is more accurate to say that Greek was spoken in Macedonia.  The physical evidence for this only dates from the late 5th century BC.

3.  They upheld some Greek customs and laws.

4.  Need I point out that the Greeks considered many of their gods of foreign origin?  It is better to say that both Greeks and local non-Greeks worshipped the same gods.  While Mt. Olympus defined the southern border of Macedonia, to the south of Mt. Olympus was the Thessalian district of Perrhaebia whose population was of Pelasgic (non-Greek) origin.  To the north of Mt. Olympus in southern Macedonia was the Pierian plain, inhabited by a tribe of Thracian (non-Greek) origin.  Just because the Greeks worshipped the Olympian gods doesn't mean that these gods were exclusively Greek.

5.  A big deal had been placed on the expression "Alexander and the Greeks" to define the Hellenic League and to define Alexander as the leader of Greek interests.  As it turns out, while Alexander and his successors brought Hellenism out to the rest of the known world; politically, the Greeks (except the Spartans) remained subject to Macedonian or Macedonian-derived rule, until local rebellions freed the Greeks from the rule of the northerners. 

Sharrukin, you make a lot of interesting but pointless points, because the data that you interpret in one way, can be easily be interpreted in another!

As I said before, one can interpret the evidence in many ways and actually that is what is happening today. I will not go into the discussions of the origin of the Macedonians because I'll never get a satisfactory reply to this question. We don't know for sure the origins of the Greeks! But I'll go to the aftermath of the Macedonians existense. Which is that they have relayed Greek culture and civilization to the ends of the then-known world. If their language was not Greek, then where is it? All we find is Greek. A few remarks by some writers that some orders were given in "Macedonian" is all the contracting evidence we have. But what was this "Macedonian"? For example the Boeotians were laughed at for their crude Greek that were barelly understandable by other Greeks. Were they non-Greeks? I think not.

Others interpret the Macedonian customs as Mycenean ones. E.g. the idea of the king as an Archon rather than an absolute ruler, or their tombs that they were Mycenean like  etc...

Anyway, like I said I don't think we'll ever have a clear answer but I think that it doesn't really matter even if they were not Greek to begin, with since they were Hellenized (volountarily) later which is even more important.

Sharukkin,

I was prepared to go into a point-by-point reply, but then I reread Yiannis' post and he pretty much summed up my thoughts excactly.

I do believe that the Macedonian were of Greek origin (and the sources I am having at my disposal point out to this fact) but it's a moot point to try to convince you of that since you decide to interpret the archeological data in a different way.

There are a few obvious fallacious points in your post: Strabo said that "barbarians are living in Macedonia too" not exclusively, is one, that you take a mythical construct like Hesiod's poems at face value, while at the same time you stand critical against much, much, much more reliable sources like Herodotus and Hellanicus is another, the wrong evaluation about when Macedonia was considered a part of the Greek word is a third, the omission of the obvious fact that we have no written records of any other tongue spoken in Macedonia but a Greek dialect - rich in Aeolian roots - is a fourth and so on.

But there is little use in splitting hairs. The rest of my points are more or less covered by Yiannis' post.

A summary (or rather a conclusion) is different than doing a point-by-point reply.  A summary is simply a declarative statement without support of reasons, whereas a point-by-point reply would give more substance to your conclusion. 

The archaeological data is quite conclusive.  No "interpretation" is required.  If you feel that the archaeological information I've given should lead to a different conclusion, than please inform us of your data. 

It wouldn't be the first time that I provided a translation, which were different from anothers.  I'm currently trying to find my source, for proof-reading.

The "mythical construct" you so despise speaks volumes about Greek perceptions about how they saw their own relationships.  What you don't mention is that while Hesiod doesn't relate "Macedon" to "Dorus" or "Aeolus", Hellanicus, almost 300 years later, for lack of a better word "corrects" Hesiod by making Macedon, "son of Aeolus".  Its interesting to note that you consider Hellanicus "a much, much, much more reliable source" when his perception was based on a "mythical construct".  Between the two is the general agreement among the Olympic athletes what the Macedonians were "barbarians". 

As for Herodotus, not every thing he wrote was correct.  I do in fact have a high respect for him, and I do use him as a source of information.  However, when speaking about high antiquity (from his time) there is obviously much to be desired, that he didn't have access to.

1.  So, then, what source are you using to show that the Greeks considered Macedonia a part of Greece, earlier than the Successors?

2.  You did say that there were other peoples in Macedonia.  The implication is that other languages were spoken there.  The only written evidence of language in Macedonia was Greek.  So what!!!  The only evidence of written language in Thrace and Bactria was Greek.  Yet, we know that the Thracians were non-Greeks and so were the Bactrians. 

2a.  However, the reality is that the Greeks did indeed preserve words in what they called "Macedonian" in ancient texts.  The most modern analysis of the extant corpus of these Macedonian words (the study by Crossland) only gives a Greek etymology just a little more than one-third of these.  Of those 58 Greek words, all have been found to be in the Attic dialect!!!  Since we know that the Attic dialect was not native to Macedonia, these "Macedonian" words were borrowings.  The others could either have other IE roots, or were from other IE languages. 

3.  The evidence for a Greek dialect in Macedonia was Northwest Greek, not Aeolic. 

Hmmm, I seemed to have neglected coming here for the longest.  Shame on me!!!   Anyway, it is good to get a response, and so I respond in kind.

Problem is you haven’t given any. Archeological data, I mean. Provide me with your sources and I’ll do my best to discredit them ok, that was a joke, I’ll do my best to provide sources that state otherwise or come to different conclusions or give you credit where credit is due. I can’t dismiss “evidence” I haven’t seen and I’ll I’ve seen for now are conclusions (and those are yours, you don’t even refer to one archeologist or another).

Curiously my main source comes from someone who did favor the Hellenic origin of the Macedonians:  N. G. L. Hammond in The Cambridge Ancient History, III Part I:  The Prehistory of the Balkans; The Middle East and the Aegean World, Tenth to Eighth Centuries BC, Chapter 15:  Illyris, Epirus, and Macedonia in the Early Iron Age, Article:  Ancient Remains in Macedonia.

For a more recent treatment of the archaeology of Macedonia, I refer to Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus.   All my other sources reflect their conclusions. 

There is in fact an on-line translation of Strabo's work, but it seems to not be working well.  I too, thought that the text in question was in Book 7, but the blasted link just takes me to Book 8.  I'm going to have to rely on a copy of the Loeb Classical series at the local University (at least it also has the Greek text), when I am able to get there.  So little time......so little time......

I can understand ancient Greek a little.  But what helps me was that I was able to get my hands on the exhaustive Greek-English Lexicon which was originally compiled by H. G. Liddell and Robert Scott, with the help of many professors and scholars.

And yet you cite Hellanicus who makes such mythological constructs.  In fact there is historical context to Hesiod.  We know that by the middle of the eighth century BC, the Euboians were planting colonies on the Aegean side of Macedonian Pieria itself.  By the end of the eighth century BC Hesiod writes his mythical construct.  If Macedonia was Greek, what were "other" Greek colonies doing there?  The archaeological context has Macedonia as Illyrian in culture, during this time, (c. 800-650 BC).

As for Hercules, come on, lets face it.  He supposedly gave rise to Lydian and Scythian dynasties, as well.  Hercules is actually a digression, a dynastic figure, not a founder of nations.  What I'm talking about are mythical personages representing peoples and tribes.  How Greeks related peoples is reflected by how they are placed on the "family tree".  For Hesiod, "Macedon" was outside the line of Hellen and was neither a son of Dorus or of Aeolus.  Therefore, not only was Macedon, to him not a Dorian or an Aeolian, but also that he wasn't a Hellene. 

You read far too much into what I wrote.  Please read above for clarification.  As for the Magnetes, we know that in historic times they did indeed spoke a Greek dialect........but not just any Greek dialect but Thessalian Aeolic.  This reflects their conquest by the Thessalians.  We don't know what their original language was.  Later, Magnes was "son of Aeolus" just as Macedon.

Yes, and his contemporary, Herodotus considered them, pre-Doric.   

Need I point out that the Argos and Arcadia of this construct were Pelasgian?  Since Pelasgians were considered non-Greeks by the ancient Greeks themselves, this Macedon was non-Greek!!!  This fits quite well with the region about Mt. Olympus itself.  If Macedon to the north of Mt. Olympus was "Pelasgian", and the Perrhaebi to the south of Mt. Olympus were of Pelasgic origin, and the region to the south of Perrhaebia (Pelasgiotis) was named after the Pelasgians, then, we have a pattern of Greek thought which considered them non-Greek in origin.  As for the sons, weren't they all killed by Zeus, except Nyctimus? 

A variation on Apollodorus.  So, where is his Greekness?

Need any more info on the Greek mythical constructs? Even they, while not of any historical value, provide ample indications that Greeks considered the Macedonian Greek. [/quote]

You may not consider them of any historical value, but they definitely have behind them Greek perceptions of the peoples involved.   Thus far none of these constructs except Hellanicus shows that the Greeks considered them Greeks. 

Quite truth! Hammond is in favor and Borza against the Greek origin of Macedonians. So how do you combine these two on that subject?

Don't have enough time now, but you seem to underestimate the power of politics in the writings of ancient Greek writers, especially when it comes to the so-called "Pelasgians". E.g. why do you think that Herodotus calls the Athenians "of Pelasgic stock"? Do you think that he consider's them non-Greek?

Quite truth! Hammond is in favor and Borza against the Greek origin of Macedonians. So how do you combine these two on that subject?

Quite simple.  Neither of them considered the early Iron Age cultures of Macedonia as of Greek origin.

He meant that they were originally of Pelasgic stock but that they, like the rest of the Ionians became Greeks.  ".....the Athenians , being themselves Pelasgian, changed their language when they were absorbed into the Greek family of nations." Herodotus, Book 1,57.   For him, the Dorians were always Greeks. 

Sharrukin

I won't proceed to a thorough reply, I'll for you to come up with something about the rest of my post.

But I can't avoid the "Pelasgian" issue, so I think I can safely put up some remarks on that:

You are trying to interprete ancient politics without recognizing them as such.  It was common knowledge in ancient Greece that the Pelasgians were the indigenous population of the southern balkans, the people the Greek tribes found when they settled in.

It was also common knowledge (or common prejudice, misunderstanding, superstition or whatever) that some Greeks came from Pelasgic stock - like the Athenian.

Those two sentences seem contradictory to eachother, but they are not if you try for one moment to think in political terms instead of clinically historical ones.

The Greeks are the first who excelled in the mastery of politics (the Romans, well, surpassed them later), just think of that.

I won't feed you with the answers, you are a clever man and can find them for yourself. I'll just point out to the fact that what we call early Greek culture dates back in the southern Balkans, to the beginning of the third millenia BC. There is a strong case for continuity in that are, from prehistoric to historic times. The "invasion" theories make for a good fairy tale, something to put the kids to sleep at night, but they really don't hold much water when examined closely, even with the fragmented and rather controversial archeological evidence we have at hand.

In that context, I couldn't help noticing that you are still supporting the - unfounded, horribly outdated and in the end misleading - "Dorian invasion" theory.  You should be aware of a number of factors pointing out that such a thing never happened. The only "invasion" seems to be a shifting of population from northern and central Greece to the Peloponese - and that's it.

I don’t find contradiction between the two statements. The indigenous Athenians were assimilated by the Greeks. But really, I am aware of how these origin traditions were used for political purposes, but it is apparent that some of these traditions were old and were already recognized throughout Greece in historic times. The oldest traditions therefore weren’t necessarily untrue.

It is a misnomer to call the culture which began in the third millennium BC "early Greek culture". It was called the Helladic Culture. What we call "Mycenaean civilization" is in reality the last phase of the Helladic Culture. It was a continuation of the Neolithic cultures which began as early as the mid-seventh millennium BC. That being said, nothing suggests that the original bearers of this culture can be properly called Greeks, but rather that the Greeks shared this culture with indigenous groups of diverse origins.

Now, what "Continuity Theory" fails to account for are "trends" which were of decidedly outside origin. Take for instance, the horse. The horse was not native to Greece, but made its appearance already domesticated by the 19^th century BC along with artefacts clearly of northern Balkan origin. Other motifs of culture made their appearance in Greece from both an earlier period and even in later periods, such as kurgans, which clearly originated from the Ukrainian steppes. The culture remained Helladic, but was modified. Now add to this, the destruction of towns and villages which coincide with the appearance of these new traditions, and we are left with a picture of warring invaders bearing their own culture, but in the end getting assimilated into the host culture. In reality, this doesn’t contradict Greek perceptions of their own past. The ancient literature does describe the Greeks adopting "Pelasgian" institutions and customs.

In terms of linguistics, even those who subscribe to the native origin of the Greeks grudgingly admit that there is a body of Greek words which were not originally Greek, and that there was even place-names of non-Greek origin. The corpus of Greek words which were not originally Greek are not random either, but show a pattern which demonstrate that the Greeks adopted non-Greek terms for various metals, fauna, flora, parts of a dwelling, and dwelling building materials. This is consistent with the idea of an intrusive population adopting native language for things in a new land.

While it is true that the supposed "Dorian invasions" are not in evidence, archaeologically, such evidence is in fact, unnecessary. The received Greek tradition places the beginning of the invasion within the area of Mycenaean culture and so we would not really expect any noticeable change of culture. What evidence we have, is to the destruction of centers of Mycenaean culture, which can be attributed to internecine warfare amongst the Mycenaeans themselves. According to the Tradition, the Dorians were provoked to invade the Peloponnese by disenfranchised Mycenaean princes (the Heraclidae). Since the Dorians were culturally Mycenaean, no further evidence is needed except the destruction of Mycenaean centers in the Peloponnese. Perhaps my internal "invasion" is the same as your "shifting population".

I have completely lost the topic! Of course there were civilizations co-existing for a while before one dominated the other. This discussion reminds me of the question: "which was first, the egg or the chicken"?

Anyway, going back to Herodotus, his claim that Athenians were "Pelasgians" is politically motivated to support the Athenian claim that they're "autochthones" and therefore (since they "were there first") can claim land rights. Herodotus displays a blatant pro-Athenian bias, and a close reading of the Histories reveals that many his sources were pro-Athenian (as one would expect, given that he spent a good deal of time in Athens and in Thurii, a colony of Athens).

This notion was not, by any means, supported by other Greeks.

Herodotus puts anything typical of, or surviving from, the state of things in Greece before the coming of the Greeks as "Pelasgic" and get's it over with. (In this sense one could regard all Greece as formerly "Pelasgic", which is in essence truth!)

Other sources:

Pythia tells the Pelasgians to give the Athenians whatever they desire.  The request is for the Pelasgian territory.  The response is that, when a ship can travel from Athens to Pelasgian territory in a single day, with a north wind, we will give you our land.  The Pelagians are “well assured” (epistamenoi) that this is impossible, since Attica is far to the south of Lemnos.  

Homer, in Iliad, mentions as Pelasgians the inhabitants of Thrace, later in Odyssey he places them living in Crete amongst Dorians and Achaeans (but doesn't comment on their status). There're no Pelasgians mentioned in Lemnos but there're Minyans.

We have the epithet Pelasgic" to a district called Argos in southern Thessaly , and to the temple of Zeus at Dodona . But neither passage mentions actual Pelasgians; Hellenes and Achaeans are the inhabitants of Thessaly, and Dodona hosts Perraebians and Aenianes, all of the Greeks. Most likelly "pelasgic" here means simply "old".

What you fail to mention is that Herodotus alludes to an even more older author, Hecateus, who mentions a Pelasgian presence in Attica until some were expelled to settle Lemnos.  We already know from Homer's Illiad that the most ancient kings of Athens were already referred to as "earth-born".   The inference is obvious.  If Herodotus was the first to use the term "Pelasgian" for the Athenians, he uses it as a connotation for the more ancient Athenian claim to nativeness.  Now, if Homer is using somewhat similar language for a specific political purpose, please specify it. 

Yes, one can say that Herodotus was pro-Athenian, especially since he declared that Athens was the most responsible for the independence of the Greeks against Persian tyranny, but so what?  He still was utilizing more ancient Athenian traditions of ancientness.  But since you mention it, he was obviously pro-Macedonian royal house as well, but I'm not going to further comment on his evidence, since I don't think it relevant.

Yes, on the southern coast of Thrace, where Herodotus also locates Pelasgian enclaves.

Hesiod mentions them there as well.

The reason for no Pelasgians in Lemnos is that they arrived there from Athens at a later date.  Read Herodotus again and you will get the sense that their arrival there was more recent in date.

Strange.  Hesiod says that when Apollo was living in Magnesia, Hermes stole his cattle and:

"He drove them through the country of the Pelasgi, and Achaea in the land of Phthia, and through Locris, and Boeotia and Megegaris, and thence into Peloponnesus......"

In this passage "Pelasgians" are specifically mentioned between Magnesia and Phthia.

In another passage, Hesiod says:

"He went to Dodona and the oak-grove, the dwelling place of the Pelasgi". 

Again, another mention of this people.  So, no, the sense is obviously not meant be mean "old" but rather that the population of these places were pre-Greek.  Where are you getting your sources of information?

I will deal with your responses, Romano, within 24 hours. 

Wow, thanks for "dealing" with us one at a time Sharrukin. Now can you please get down from your horse?

Anyway, I'm not going to go into the logic of trying to rebufe line by line your views. I'll simply make some comments.

You're fast to discredit Hesiod or Herodotus when they claim Macedonians were Greeks but you're even faster to accept them when they say that the Athenians were Pelasgians.

The epithet "Pelasgic" is mentioned bu Ho,er for a spesific area in Thesally called "Argos", not the whole region. I'm aware that there are many settlements in Thesally that can be classified under the blanket "Pelasgic" (e.g. Larissa).

My sources? The internet, e.g.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelasgians - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelasgians

http://38.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PE/PELASGIANS.htm - http://38.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PE/PELASGIANS.htm

and others...

PELASGIANS, a name applied by Greek writers to a prehistoric people whose traces were believed to exist in Greek lands. If the statements of ancient authorities are marshalled in order of their date it will be seen that certain beliefs cannot be traced back beyond the age of this or that author. Though this does not prove that the beliefs themselves were not held earlier, it suggests caution in assuming that they were.

In conclusion, I say that Pelasgians were not a tribe of people but a blanket-term that Greeks used to describe the whole of the pre-Hellenic population (assuming that our dear Pelasgians were pre-Greek). Even the Greeks of classical era did not know who or what they were.

Yiannis, if I sound a bit too arrogant, I apologize, okay.

Hesiod's perception was based on his observation of the Macedonians of his time.  He considered them kindred enough to Greeks to warrant putting them on a "mythological construct" making them "cousins" to the Greeks.  He did not perceive them as fitting any of the four categories of Greeks he mentions as children or grandchildren of Hellen.

Herodotus, almost three hundred years later, on the other hand, saw them as pre-Dorians and as "cousin" to Dorians.   Since he does not say that these "Makednons" were Greek but only the Dorians, there is left enough of a doubt even among his readers as to the national origin of the royal house itself, which he himself took pains to "demonstrate" that they were Greek.  He did after all say that the Greeks were a branch of the Pelasgians.  There is nothing then, not suggest that these "Makednons" were Pelasgians.  

His contemporary, Hellanicus, viewed them as Aeolian and therefore Greek.   Perhaps Hellanicus saw the Hellenization of the Macedonians in full swing.  Which witness should we believe; as the pre-Dorians of the Dorian Herodotus, or as the Aeolians of the Aeolian Hellanicus?  Perhaps the answer lies in the time between Hesiod and Herodotus/Hellanicus; that the Macedonians were becoming Greek, and that the Greeks of the fifth century BC held different views of the Macedonians.  Three hundred years is enough time to transform a people.  It is only sufficient for me to say that until about 550 BC, Greek culture did not predominate in Macedonia, despite Greek colonies established there since about 750 BC when the Macedonians were first observed. 

Me "discrediting" Hesiod or Herodotus?  You hurt me Yiannis.

I never said that the Pelasgians of one place were related to the Pelasgians of another place.  As far as I'm concerned, "Pelasgians" is a blanket term for peoples seen by the Greeks as either pre-Greeks or their descendants inhabiting the same regions as the Greeks.

Now I have to post-pone my response to Romano, since I'm posting this kind of late today, my time.  I'll try again tomorrow. 

Originally posted by Sharrukin Yiannis, if I sound a bit too arrogant, I apologize, okay.

No offence taken, I know it's not your style to be arrogant

But keep in mind that there's no such thing as "a bit too arrogant",you're either "a bit" or "too"

I concede the point Yiannis Grammatis. 

By the way, is anyone else having difficulty accessing these threads?  I've been trying for the longest to access these forums today, but they didn't want to build when I clicked on the links.  I was finally able to get this far only after 10:00 pm, my time!!!

They were traditions rather than theories.  Irregardless of Herodotus's pro-Athenian leanings, he does allude to traditions which were known to the older Hecateus and even from the time of Homer. 

But in fact we do have references of Achaean migration.  According to the received traditions, descendants (or sons) of Achaeus migrated from Achaean Phthia in Thessaly to Argolis where they intermarried with the daughters of king Danaus.  They gained such an influence that the Argives became known as Achaeans.  The dynasty remained Danaean but the population was becoming Hellenized. 

Rather it was his "source" which was "perceptive", but since I looked at the passages personally, I found the name "Pelasgi" was indeed mentioned in them, specifically.  So, no, I cannot agree with his source.

Because the Greeks can only be considered one of many groups which constituted the Helladic culture.  Their traditions are quite persistent that they were not the only ones in Greece, and thus we have a multiplicity of names of non-Greek tribes distributed all over Greece in the mythological period.  By sometime in the Late Helladic period they began to predominate.  The first evidence of the Greek language, in Crete, dates from about 1450 BC and on the mainland from about 1300 BC, in diverse places.  Thus by perhaps 1500 BC the Greeks began to predominate, mostly through peaceful infiltration into areas formely not under their rule.  The traditions mostly begin their migrations either in Thessaly or from an adjacent region in northern Greece. 

You know, after trying to find specific material to add flesh to this "Continuity Theory" I still find the specifics elusive.  I've read time and time again, all these declarative statements about the "Kurgan invasions" being a "myth", "outdated", "disproved", etc. and I'm not finding anything concrete to disprove the "invasionist" position.  They are purely declarative statements.  Now, on the other hand, Greece does show a continuity from the Neolithic period.  As a matter of fact there are other regions where IE languages penetrated which do show continuity. These facts in no way disprove "invasionist" theory.  Greece happened to have a strong culture which was adopted by the invaders.  The same cannot be said of the more northern Balkans. 

Gimbutas's studies (much despised by Continuity theorists) do show displacement of populations coincidental with the introduction of cultural elements from the steppe which appreciably altered the cultures of the region within the space of two millennia.  Old European cultures were either hybridized, displaced, or submerged, and new names are given by the archaeologists to the new cultures to reflect these changes.  The proliferation of "kurgans" in the Balkans cannot simply be explained in terms of cultural fusion or trade.  This burial custom has behind it both religious and social undertones, facits of culture which would have been resisted by local populations.

And let's face it, in historic times we do find large-scale invasions which change the linguistic composition of large areas without appreciably altering the local culture.  How is it that Illyrians, Paeonians, and Thracians were absorbed by the Slavs?  Byzantine chronicles even mention Slavic penetration and settlement into the Peloponnese itself, although these Slavs were eventually absorbed.   How is it that central Asia became Turkified?   I think that Continuity Theory has taken the opposite extreme and deny evidence which can explain many things. 

In about 1200 BC in the Peloponnese:  Pylos, Mycenae, Tiryns, Midea, Meneleion, Korakou (in Corinthia).  Other centers like Zygouries, Prosymna, Berbati, and Nemea were abandoned all about the same time. 

You seemed to have ignored the evidence of the place-names, to establish languages in Greece other than Greek.  We can watch the evolution of the Greek itself in two ways.  We can find the root words within Greek itself to establish whether a certain word was originally Greek, and we can compare Greek with other IE languages to find points of commonality.  As you may know, the languages which are the most similar to Greek are the Indo-Aryan languages.   In terms of geography, their relationship cannot be explained from contact in the Middle East, since we know that the earliest languages of these regions were Hattian, Hurrian, and Semitic.  On the other hand we do have evidence of a continuum of Iranic languages on the Eurasian steppe into the Balkans, and so by extension we have a northern Eurasian continuum of IE languages stretching into Iran and India.  Add to this, Phrygian and Armenian whose bearers were said to have originated in the Balkans, and which also show affinities with Greek and we can paint a picture of a time, when bearers of what would become Greek were part of an extended community of speakers of similar languages somewhere in eastern Balkans or the Pontic steppe. 

Anthropologists note that settled populations are much more conservative in maintaining their language than mobile populations.  In other words, it is unlikely that the settled population would adopt words from newcomers if the words already exist in their own language.  Mobile populations on the other hand will adopt words from the native language.  Take the case of ancient Sumerian.  The Akkadian population adopted Sumerian terminology and not visa versa. 

Yes, most European culture remained quite concervative to change, but let's not forget that linguistically, Europe did see much change.  You cannot deny that there were conquests and invasions, such as that of the Romans which altered the linguistic map of part of the Balkans (i.e. Romania) and western Europe (i.e. Portugal, Spain, and France).  You cannot deny large-scale Celtic, Germanic and Slavic invasions which, although didn't make that much of a cultural impact, nevertheless made a linguistic one (the Slavs more so than the Germanics). 

Yes, in terms of genetics, studies do show that 80% of European genes originated in Paleolithic populations.  But this in itself does not exclude "invasionist" theories.  Local genetics pretty much absorb the invaders genotypically. 

IN BORZA'S WORDS  TAKEN FROM YOUR POST

First, the matter of the Hellenic origins of the Macedonians: Nicholas Hammond's general

conclusion (though not the details of his arguments)8 that the origin of the Macedonians lies in the pool of

Hesiod's perception was based on his observation of the Macedonians of his time.  He considered them kindred enough to Greeks to warrant putting them on a "mythological construct" making them "cousins" to the Greeks.  He did not perceive them as fitting any of the four categories of Greeks he mentions as children or grandchildren of Hellen.

    .Hesoid stated the Macedonians were related to the Thessalians as brothers.Thus are you saying Thessalians were not Greek?

  From the daughter of Deucalion sprang Magnes and Macedon, ancestors of the Magnesians and Macedonians, who are thus

   Since Deucalion was the Father of all Greeks and the Macedonians were his offspring then it is implied quite coherantly that Macedonians like Thessalians(Magnes) were related to the Hellenes thus shaing a common origin.So the Greeks accepted Hesoid's observation that they had a common origin with the Macedonians in 720 BC well before Phillip's time.

 In addition please keep in mind that Greeks did not always use the word Hellas to describe themselves .In the Illiad only Achilles and his myridoms came from a place called Hellas.Greeks used the terms Acheans,Argeives and Danaans to describe their kin not Hellenes.The term Hellas to describe the Greek peoples was gradually applied well after the Trojan war.

ince he does not say that these "Makednons" were Greek but only the Dorians,

 Read Herodotus more carefully he states that the Makedon were the original Hellenes who

settled about Pindos under the name Makednon."
(Herodotos 1.56)

  He clearly associates the Macedonians among the earliest of Greeks.He also states the Dorians emerged from the Makedon's.The name Makedon proceeds the Dorian name.Only when some of the original Greek tribes entered the Peloponese was the name Dorian used.

 HEROD -from there again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where it took the name of Dorian."

From the Peloponnese, the following- the Lacedaemonians with six, teen ships; the Corinthians with the same number as at Artemisium; the Sicyonians with fifteen; the Epidaurians with ten; the Troezenians with five; and the Hermionians with three. These were Dorians and Macedonians all of them (except those from Hermione), and had emigrated last from Erineus, Pindus, and Dryopis. The Hermionians were Dryopians, of the race which Hercules and the Malians drove out of the land now called Doris. Such were the Peloponnesian nations. 

    Herodotus  states that Peloponisians were heavily composed of MACEDONIAN stock from Pindus

xx xx

Thanks for joining in - welcome to AE. 

You have some good information.  In the future - please remember that posting Bold Print, Large Type and/or ALL CAP'S is the equivalent of shouting. 

It could be construed as rude and tends to detract from the point that you are making rather than emphasize it. 

Thanks

 Herodotus displays a blatant pro-Athenian bias, and a close reading of the Histories reveals that many his sources were pro-Athenian

      Yannis it could also be argued that Herodotus was pro Dorian since he himself was Dorian from a Dorian colony in Asia Minor.

     He also retricts Hellenic origins to Makedons and Dorians while he states Athenians later became abosorbed into the Hellenic nations.

  It should also be noted that many historians stated that the Proto Greek speaking tribes originated in Northern Greece.Historian Nicholas Hammond in the Book The Greeks makes the following point.Mt Olympus as a focal point of the Greek religion since early Greek tribes first settled in that region where Olympus was visable.Why would a City in Ellias in the Peloponese be called Olympia when it is hundreds of miles from Mt Olympus? The 1st Tombs that resemble Greek Tombs at Mycenae First appear in Epirus.The Greeks who moved from their original homeland in the Pindus region south ward became the City State Greeeks.Those who remained the north Macedonia,Epirus Thessally ect became some what isolated from their Southern Kin.

   When Herodotus mentions that Peloponisians at least the Upper Classes where from Macedonian stock he was explaining their earlier origin before moving to the Peloponese.

  I do not beleive that Herod was pro Athenian or pro Dorian but simply releying the known accepted knowlege of the times.

Where does he say that they were Doric Greeks? What he says is the Macedonians were pre-Dorians and related to Dorians, but he never says that they were Greeks.

Where does he say that they were Doric Greeks? What he says is the Macedonians were pre-Dorians and related to Dorians, but he never says that they were Greeks

    From your following statement I conclude you never read Herodus' s statements or you missinterpited his writtings.

 Herod

"And inquiring he found that the Lacedemonians and the Athenians had the pre-eminence, the first of the Dorian and the others of the Ionian race. For these were the most eminent races in ancient time, the second being a Pelasgian and the first a Hellenic race:"

    Herodotus clearly states that the Dorians were a Hellenic race by origin-There is no other possible interpitation.

"For in the days of king Defkalion it  inhabited the land of Phthiotis, then in the time of Doros, son of Hellin, the country called Histaeotis, under Ossa and Olympus; driven by the Cadmeians from this Histaeotis country it settled in Pindos with the name Makedon And inquiring he found that the Lacedemonians and the Athenians had the pre-eminence, the first of the Dorian and the others of the Ionian race. For these were the most eminent races in ancient time, the second being a Pelasgian and the first a Hellenic race:; thence again it migrated to Dryopida, and at last came from Dryopida into Peloponnissos, where it took the name Dorians"

     Here Herodotus states that the Hellenic race took on different names in areas it migrated to .While in Pindus it referred to itself as MaKedon in the Peloponese it took the name Dorian.

    Thus Herodotus makes it quite clear that the name Dorian Makedon ect  were different names that the original Hellenic race used in areas they settled.

   Lets use your interpitation -That Macedonians were related to Dorians but not Greek

    Since it is established that Herodotus refers to Dorians as the original Hellenic  and you interpit it to mean that the Macedonians though related to the Dorians but not Greek 

 Dorians emerged from the Makedni and both were names that Herodotus associated  with the original Greek tribes then it would be virtually impossible for the Makedoni to be non Greek while the Dorians were Greek

   Were  Teutons,Vandals ,Goths ect all Germanic tribes via relation ? Are their later decendents Prussians , Bavarians ,Saxons ect all German? Germany was not a country formally untill 1870 but we know that Prussians decendent from Teutonic peop[les are German

    The name Germany was not used to describe a nation of Germanic peoples untill 1870 .Germanic political entities used different names to describe them selves such as Bavaria.The same is true with Hellas .That term was not used to describe Greek speaking people as a whole untill much later.

  And what about Austrians ? We know they are Germanic peoples that are related to Germans but do not refer to their nation as Germany.

  Herodotus referred to the Makedon as originally Hellenic as he did the Dorians.This is not debatable.

  And in addition Herodotus states that most of the Peloponesians were Doric/Macedonian stock as I quoted earlier

  Thus if the Makedon were not Greek then neither are the Peloponesians Corinthians Spartans ect

    Were the Greeks including the Makedoni 100% pure ?Of course not .Herodotus points out that the Hellenic ethos increased in numbers by absorbing foreign nations.Pre Greek cultures in nthe Greek pennisula over time were aborbed by Greek peoples in much the same way Anglo Saxons absorbed Keltic,Roman,and earlier elements in what became England.

    Herodotus makes his positions quite clear.I will respond to your other points later.

Interesting replies Sharrukin... I'll have to deal with them later, because I've got little time for research and reading currently.

Only two points that do not need much reading (only common sense):

In previous posts you seem to imply that we can trace a great deal of data only from linguistical evidence. And there is this common notion (not a common fallacy, I assume) that names (be it names of people or of places) carry a whole lotta weight in the linguistics, as they show among many other things if "alien" intermixtures have occured - you are trying to prove that there was indeed a "Kurgan invasion" based almost 90% on linguistic evidence.

And here you proceed to disqualify a humangous pile of evidence, the Macedonian names, with a (simply wrong) argument of them being of the 4th century and on and the previous being mostly of kings...

I found this an extremely selective way of interpreting things... when it fits we use it, when it doesn't we discard it? Reminds me of how Gimbutas manipulated her evidence so she could prove her Kurgan theory

We have a very large body of Macedonian names at our disposal. Yes, the bulk of those (like 90%) are from the early 4th century and on. But I would assume - as every historian or linguist would assume - that if they were hellenized somewhere in the 6th century, as you imply, they would keep a vast body of their own names in a hellenized form.

Well, as I pointed out, only one single name we have for Macedonians, does not have Greek roots.

The rest (about 99.8%) are from Greek roots.

Care to explain how such a disrepancy (really, a blasphemy in the face of linguistics, if your theory about "hellenization" of the Macedonians is to be held of any value) has occured? It would be unique in the annals of history, you know.

Also, when I said that Karians, Thracians, Lydians and Lykians were hellenized, you said that they preserved their ethnic and linguistic identity (they didn't, but that's a whole different story and we can't discuss it as a side-issue) well into the Roman times... Well, we know that the hellenization of Karians, for instance, started in the 6th century BC. Herodotus himself was half-Karian.

If the national identity of the Karians, who began being hellenized from the 6th century BC, was not "complete"  "well into the Roman period and even into the Byzantine period" (that would be about 1.000 years at least, correct?), how on earth could the Macedonian be so thoroughly assimilated in a period of 2 centuries, just because some Greek colonies were founded in Macedonia, and leave us absolutely nothing (and I repeat: NOTHING) that speaks of a different cultural and ethnical and linguistical identity?

I mean, I don't believe the Greeks had any close connection with The Borg

You are being extremely inconsistent, my friend. That's not very scientific.

Ah, btw. allen cannot be interpreted as "elsewhere" (and it doesn't make any sense in that context - "Macedonia and elsewhere of Greece?" ) - that word is "allouthe".

Utterly false.  What I'm implying is that a great deal of data can be gained from a combination of linguistic, archaeological, and historical data.  Names are simply only one of the linguistic hints we have in order to draw conclusions.   You seem to want to ignore that evidence.

And here you proceed to disqualify a humangous pile of evidence, the Macedonian names, with a (simply wrong) argument of them being of the 4th century and on and the previous being mostly of kings...

What I said, was that the "evidence" from the Greek names in Macedonia mostly date from the 4th century BC and afterwards.  What you ignore is the context of the evidence.  If I am "wrong" about the evidence prior to the 4th century BC, that the evidence is mostly that of the Macedonian kings, then give your evidence.

I found this an extremely selective way of interpreting things... when it fits we use it, when it doesn't we discard it? Reminds me of how Gimbutas manipulated her evidence so she could prove her Kurgan theory

I disagree that it is selective, but in the same token, I find it extremely selective when you quote passages, but when analysed in proper context prove nothing.  But okay, since you are jumping on Gimbutas, I want to know how she "manipulated" the evidence to "prove" her theory?

We have a very large body of Macedonian names at our disposal. Yes, the bulk of those (like 90%) are from the early 4th century and on. But I would assume - as every historian or linguist would assume - that if they were hellenized somewhere in the 6th century, as you imply, they would keep a vast body of their own names in a hellenized form.

Well, we do have the Hellenized names of places of non-Greek origin.  Perhaps Greek script arrived in Macedonia relatively late?  Or was it restricted to specific areas, or even to the Argeads themselves?  The Greek narrative evidence points to colonies established in Macedonian Pieria as late as the latter part of the 8th century BC.  Why don't we have evidence of Greek script from such an early period in this region?  So, just because they were Hellenized somewhere in the 6th century doesn't mean that there were be evidence of inscriptions of Hellenized names, or Greek inscriptions for that matter. 

Well, as I pointed out, only one single name we have for Macedonians, does not have Greek roots. The rest (about 99.8%) are from Greek roots. Care to explain how such a disrepancy (really, a blasphemy in the face of linguistics, if your theory about "hellenization" of the Macedonians is to be held of any value) has occured? It would be unique in the annals of history, you know.

The "discrepancy" is in the observable evidence, not in the reasoning.  You seem to ignore the context of your evidence.  It is mostly of 4th century date.  Where there should be much evidence prior to this is simply mostly not there.  This of necessity must beg the question.  Why is it mostly not there?  If it is "blasphemy" to think otherwise, I have justification to think so.  Even after the first Greek colonies were established there, it took another 200 years for Hellenization to take root.  It is only reasonable to assume that Greek script, to express either Greek or non-Greek presence only was adopted even later. 

Also, when I said that Karians, Thracians, Lydians and Lykians were hellenized, you said that they preserved their ethnic and linguistic identity (they didn't, but that's a whole different story and we can't discuss it as a side-issue) well into the Roman times... Well, we know that the hellenization of Karians, for instance, started in the 6th century BC. Herodotus himself was half-Karian.

The Carians were largely Hellenized beginning in an earlier period but the bulk of Hellenization only occurred begiining near the beginning in the 4th century BC.  The Lycians less so, and maintained their identity and autonomy even into the Roman period.  The Thracians maintained their identity until the arrival of the Slavs.  The Lydians weren't really Hellenized until the time of Alexander and Lydian continued to be expressed in inscriptions until the 1st century BC.   Whether Herodotus was half-Carian is irrelevant.  Halicarnassus, as well as other Dorian cities were established on formerly Carian land, in the pre-Archaic period.  However, the greater part of Caria really wasn't Hellenized until much later. 

If the national identity of the Karians, who began being hellenized from the 6th century BC, was not "complete"  "well into the Roman period and even into the Byzantine period" (that would be about 1.000 years at least, correct?),

Hmmm.  I should have been more specific in my descriptions, which I fixed above.

how on earth could the Macedonian be so thoroughly assimilated in a period of 2 centuries, just because some Greek colonies were founded in Macedonia, and leave us absolutely nothing (and I repeat: NOTHING) that speaks of a different cultural and ethnical and linguistical identity?

Now whose being selective?  I've already mentioned that the Greek colonies were established in a Macedonia which was ILLYRIAN in culture.  About 800 BC the Illyrian Glasinac Culture expanded from the east and established itself in the greater part of Macedonia including Vergina, the ancient Aegae, where the Macedonian royal house was said to have been established.  Macedonia remained Illyrian in culture until about 650 BC.   It was during this time that those already- mentioned Greek colonies were established.  So, please, DON'T call this "nothing" until you do your research, okay?  Thank you.

If you are going to accuse me, please attempt to understand my position in proper context, okay?  Again, thank you.

Sharukin, why are you getting upset? I mean, I ain't Greek, you ain't "Macedonian", why are you getting so "passionate" about this escapes my mind... and your tone ain't improving either... I mean "do your research" is rather rude... and I could've said it to you a few times before (but didn't).

I am not trying to win an argument here, I am just trying to put forth the scientific data available so we, being rather intelligent people and quite knowledgeable, and not operating on one agenda or another, can draw some educated, scientific conclusions.

But you seem extremely fixed to the idea that Macedonians were non-Greeks and you carry on with your effort to disprove valid data on that claim.

I am not accusing you, I am just stating the obvious: that your sole effort is to disprove what I am writing, not to actually seek what is true.

In that context (since you mentioned it) you are still dodging my main question. Let me repeat it, in hope I will get a straight answer.

Cultures tend to preserve their names. A society, ethnic group or whatever, that has adopted a foreign culture, shall carry a host of names (be it of people, places etc.) through the "transformation". You can see that in many cultures that have adopted foreign cultures, one or another.

In the case of Macedonia, we have nothing like that. The hellenization theory doesn't stand the trial of scientific examination because

- No Macedonian names have non-Greek roots. That should be ample evidence enough. Yes, the bulk of the Macedonian names we have comes from the 4th century and on, but how come and people have not preserved some of their names in a hellenized form? Why only one single macedonian name (1=one=uno=ein=ena=1) has non-Greek roots? Don't dodge this with hellenization, we are talking about ROOTS - the Indo-european roots in the current IE languages are still tracable, 6000 years (according to others, 7, 8 or even 10.000 years) after the IE tribes have split... how can't we trace names and words of a culture that has been "assimilated" by a superior culture only a few decades ago?

- When does cultural assimilation occur. That is a rather funny beast. We have the supposed "Macedonians", a culture that you (and Borza) suggest that has Illyrian roots. Illyrian is, as you probably know, an umbrella term designed to cover a rather wide array of cultures that had little or nothing in common. Yet, the Macedonians were numerous, that many that their manpower was comparable with that of all southern city states. And you believe they were assimilated into the Greeks just because they neighbor Greece and because a number of Greek colonies was established there? Could you point out to other similar occurences in the historical annals? A large body of non-natives being assimilated to a (superior or not, doesn't really matter) foreign culture just because of proximity, when the numbers of the "lesser" culture are greater than those of the "assimilators"? I mean, there were dozens of Greek colonies and settlements in Illyricum, and Greek Epiros was bordering it... but it wasn't assimilated - never. Why did - their cusins, according to your interpretation - Macedonians got so thoroughly hellenized by two dozens of Greek colonies, so that in the 4th century they ALL consider themselves Greek? I repeat: last time I checked, the BORG was residing in the Star Treck universe, not in Ancient Balkans.

I was thinking that this is not a contest "outsmart the other guy", but actually an exchange of ideas, data and evidence, in order to seek some productive medium (if there is one).

Was I wrong?

What I find at least sick is that everyone wants to connect their non-existance to the greatness of Hellas.

Sharrukin
>>Nowhere prior to the rule of Alexander can you find a quote which regarded Macedonia as part of Greece. <<

It's tome to open up our history books again. Haven't you ever heard of Alexander I?

Herodotus:
"Tell your king (Xerxes), who sent you, how his Greek viceroy (Alexander I) of Macedonia has received you hospitably."
(Herod. V, 20, 4 [Loeb])

"Now, that these descendants of Perdiccas are Greeks, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know."
(Herod. V, 22, 1 [Loeb])

"But Alexander (I), proving himself to be an Argive, was judged to be a Greek; so he contended in the furlong race and ran a dead heat for first place."
(Herod. V, 22, 2)

"For I (Alexander I) myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery."
(Herod. IX, 45, 2 [Loeb])

Note that Alexander I was the Macedonian king in 498-454 BC. That is at least 100yrs before your "version" of history every happened.

Thucydides:
"The country by the sea which is now called Macedonia ... Alexander I, the father of Perdiccas (II), and his forefathers, who were originally Temenidae from Argos."
(Thuc. II, 99, 3 [Loeb, C. F. Smith])

"Now, that these descendants of Perdiccas are Greeks, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know."
(Herod. V, 22, 1 [Loeb])

And since we went back in their history why not see their beginning or should I say their ONLY TRUE ORIGIN.

"And she conceived and bore to Zeus, who delights in the thunderbolt, two sons, Magnes and Macedon, rejoicing in horses, who dwell round about Pieria and Olympus."
(Hesiod, Catalogues of Women and Eoiae 3 [Loeb, H.G. Evelyn-White])

But then again none of the following can be Hellinic people either

The Peloponnesians that were with the fleet were ... the Lacedaimonians, ... the Corinthians, ... the Sicyonians, ... the Epidaurians, ... the Troezenians, ... the people of Hermione there; all these, except the people of Hermione, were of Dorian and Macedonian stock and had last come from Erineus and Pindus and the Dryopian region."
(Herod. VIII, 43 {Loeb])

I also noticed that even though almost everyone quotes Herodotus not one of you know of this:

In Herodotus Book I, 56

"These races, Ionian and Dorian, were the foremost in ancient time, the first a Pelasgian and the second an Hellenic people. The Pelasgian stock has never yet left its habitation, the Hellenic has wandered often and afar. For in the days of king Deucalion it inhabited the land of Phthia, then in the time of Dorus son of Hellen the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus; driven by the Cadmeans from this Histiaean country it settled about Pindus in the parts called Macednian; thence again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia to Peloponnesos, where it took the name of Dorian".

>> There is no way to determine if the Macedonian was speaking a dialect of Greek, or a foreign language and trying to speak in broken Attic.. I can easily say, ‘so a Macedonian is clumsy with the Attic dialect.<<

Even today when speaking modern Hellinic, the Atheneans make fun of the Macedonian way of speech. They tend to give emphasis on the L.  All archeologic finds are enough to prove that they spoke nothing but the Hellinic language. That alone proves that the Macedonians were not a Hellinized group of people, but, they were an original Hellinic tribe. What leads us to that conclusion, is that if they where somehow hellenized, then that must have been caused by the colonies that other Greek states had on Macedonia's coasts, and which were Ionian-speaking. So, if they were Hellinized,then the Greek words in that "language" should have been produced by the "hellenization" and that means that they were supposed to be of the Ionian dialect, which they are not!

>> Why don't we have evidence of Greek script from such an early period in this region?  So, just because they were Hellenized somewhere in the 6th century doesn't mean that there were be evidence of inscriptions of Hellenized names, or Greek inscriptions for that matter. <<

Funny you speak of blasphemy  You obviously have NO knoledge of recent finds, otherwise you wouldn't insist on this. http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/news/content.asp?aid=33279 - http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/news/content.asp?aid=33279

>>About 800 BC the Illyrian Glasinac Culture expanded from the east and established itself in the greater part of Macedonia including Vergina, the ancient Aegae, where the Macedonian royal house was said to have been established.  Macedonia remained Illyrian in culture until about 650 BC. <<

Where you get your info is beyond me. The site previously provided proves this to be false and if that isn't enough, please explain how is it possible for the Hellines to have colonized Italy, Black Sea................and Illyria and had totally missed Macedonia that was right next to them?

Some more info:

Another interesting fact, is our knoledge of Macedonians taking part in the Olympics, we know for a fact that only Hellines were allowed to do so, even when conquered by the Romans and after they demanded to participate in the Olympics, they were introduced to a kind of "AGON" that was totally different to the original Olympics and preformed on a totally different date.

A list of Macedonian Olympic winners:

Year Event Name Home town
480 Boxing Theagenes Thasos
472 Boys' Boxing Tellon Orestheia
408 Tethrippon Archelaos King of Macedonia
380 Pankration Xenophon Aigai
356 Horse Race Philip II King of Macedonia
352 Tethrippon Philip II King of Macedonia
348 Synoris Philip II King of Macedonia
328 Stadion Kliton Unknown
320 Stadion Damasias Amphipolis
304 Tethrippon Lampos Philippoi
292 Stadion Antigonos Unknown
288 Stadion Antigonos Unknown
268 Foals' Tethrippon Belestichos Unknown
268 Stadion Seleukos Unknown
264 Synoris Belestichos Unknown
129 Unknown Diephilos Aigai

And finally, if someone would strive to prove the non Hellinic origin of the Macedonians that would be the FYROMians, for obvious reasons.
So let us see what Fyromian scholars have said/wrote on this topic:

Here is a collection of excerpts from FYROMian academic literature that confirm the Greek ethnicity of ancient Macedonians

1)'We are not to be amazed that in the archaeological material of Pelagonia we have a rarely great wealth of reflections of all pronounced cultural events in the relations between middle-Danubian and Graeco-Aegean world'
Mikulcic,Ivan "Pelagonija",Skopje,1966,pp.2

'In a such great chronological distance in the life of ancient Pelagonia two stages are visible: development and existence in the frames of Hellenic culture and later the Roman one'

Ibid.,pp.4


------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
2)'The lower part of Vardar is certainly the area south of Demir-Kapija gorge that entered Hellenic cultural sphere very early and already before 600 b.c. the material culture is thoroughly Hellenised.'
"The Valley of Vardar in Ist millennium b.c" ("???????? ?? ??pd?p ß? ?pß??? µ??e??sµ ?.?.e.") ,Skopje,1982,pp.2


------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
3)'Even in the last decades of 5th century stabilization in all spheres of social life is established. As first sign of the new time import from Graeco-Macedonian south appeared as well as fortified settlements that later grew into urban centers with character of economic and religious nuclei of the region'
"Guide to the archaeological exhibition"("??d?? ??? ?p?e???????? ?????a?"),Skopje,1996,pp.54


------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
4)'For example,Pelagonia,which is naturally oriented to the South, was the first to be subjected to Greek influence, together with the lower part of Vardar'
"Archaeologic Map of the Republic of Macedonia"("?p?e?????? µ??? ?? ?e?sa???? ???ed?????"),Skopje,1996,pp.71


------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
5)'From the mountains of Epirus Dorian Makednoi (Macedonians) made their advance towards Macedonia, conquering the native tribes who latter gained new, Hellenistic culture and after that are politically organized into a powerful state'
"The Art in Macedonia"("Sµe?????? ß? ???ed?????"),Skopje,1984 pp.26


------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
6)'Paeonians,a people who during the first millennia b.c inhabited border area between the three great paleobalkanic peoples-Illyrians, Thracians and Hellenes'
Veljanovska,Fanica "An Attempt at Anthropological Definition of the Paeonians"("?a?d ?? ???p???????? det???p??e ?? ?????f??e"),Skopje,1994


------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
7)'...Certain proto-populations occupying distinct areas of the Balkans are to be distinguished on territories of the cultural groups :in western part of the Balkans the proto-Illyrians, in the east the proto Thracians, in the south the Hellenes, in the northern part of the Balkans the proto Daco-Mysians and in the southwest of the Central Balkans the proto Bryges.'
"Bryges on the central Balkans in the 2nd and 1st millennium b.c."("?p????e ?? fe??p?????? ?????? ß? ß??p??? ? ?pß??? µ??e??sµ ?.?.e.") (summary)

"Arheologija" No 1,Skopje 1995


------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
'With the end of Iron Age III, i.e. with the total Hellenisation of material culture,the prehistory of Macedonia ends.'
Sanev,Vojislav "Prehistory of S.R. Macedonia"("?p?????p??? ?? ?.?. ???ed?????"),Skopje 1977,pp.13


------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
9)"The Art of Antiquity left in the region of Ohrid a great number of traces of its own presence.Illyrian forts imported goods from Greek centers and imitated them in a modest fashion. Political advancement of the Macedonians and their domination enabled cultural influx that manifested itself through products of crafts and alphabet. From the times of Phillip II deeper advances in the area of Lychnidos are attested.Cultural influences of the Graeco-Macedonian world are more present.Rich Hellenistic culture arrived at Illyrian soil"
"Ohrid" by Vera Bitrakova-Grozdanova ,in:"The Art in Macedonia"("Sµe?????? ß? ???ed?????") ,Skopje 1984, pp.85


------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
10)"With the increase of influences from developed cultured south and with the acceptation of Hellenic influences over Paeonia,which already in the V and IV centuries b.c.have committed great changes in the Paeonian culture, usage of Greek Pantheon was also accepted"
Petrova,Eleonora "Cults and symbolism of Paeonian tribes compared with the Illyrian and Thracian ones"("?s???? ? ??µa????µ?? ??? ?????????e ??eµ??? ???pede? ?? ???p????e ? ?p????????e") in: "Macedoniae Acta Archeologica",Skopje No.13,pp.129

"Having the central position in this part of the Balkans,Paeonia,apart from receiving influences from the Hellenic south, wasn't an exception with regard to influences from Illyrian and Thracian sphere"

Ibid.,pp.134


------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
11)"Greek epigraphic monuments created before definitive Roman domination of our area are to be found in modest quantity"
Bitrakova Grozdanova,Vera "Hellenistic Monuments in S.R.Macedonia"("?e?e???????? ???µe??f? ß? ?.?.???ed?????"),Skopje,1987,pp. 130

"Study of the inscriptions speaks about epigraphic characteristics of the neighboring Macedonian-Hellenic world"

Ibidem. pp.103


------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
12)"During the early arhaic period at the Macedonian territory,the Dorian tribal groups came across over the Pindos mountain,to the area of today's North-Western Greece and parts of the southern Republic of Macedonia.They established several early principalities partially by chasing away the local Paeonian tribes.Those tribal groups were the ancient Macedonians"
"Macedonian Heritage"("???ed????? ????ed??ß?"),No 1,july 1996,pp.5


------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
13)"The northern periphery of Greek world, inhabited with ancient Macedonians and other peoples and tribes, wasn't developed for democracy as the most developed social system at that time"
Mikulcic,Ivan "Ancient towns in the Republic of Macedonia"("????????e ?p?d?ß? ß? ?e?sa???? ???ed?????"),Skopje,1999,pp.9

"Our overview was exposed chronologically. The first part embraces the early antiquity in our country, the period from 5th century b.c. up to the middle 3rd century b.c.. Throughout this centuries one can follow the Hellenic spirit and the creation of the Hellenic civilization in our areas, which left a basic imprint on the material artifacts"

Ibidem. pp.10-11


------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
14)"The quantitative ceramic material used to be produced with the usual process including the labor of persons .Partly because of that, partly because of the traditions that had taken roots into our soil, which with centuries before that used to be watered with Hellenic spirit and Hellenistic way of life ,the use of the building ceramics had been brought to minimum"
Lilcic,Viktor "Building ceramics in the Republic of Macedonia during the Roman Periodcupi,Stobi,Heraclea Lynkestis,Styberra"

("Gp?de??? ?ep?µ??? ß? ?e?sa???? ???ed????? ?? ßpeµe ?? p?µ????? ?ep??d-??s??,???a?,?ep???e?????e????,???aep?"), Skopje,1996,pp.120


------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
15)"In any case during the classical and Hellenistic periods and especially in the 4th and 3rd centuries b.c. we can no longer speak of Paeonian cult in the Peaonian region ,but of cults adopted by the entire Hellenic civilization, where through the material culture, elements of spiritual life from developed south were adopted. This was followed by the strenghtening of the autochthonous elements above all, the solar cult. Since Paeonians were centrally located in this region of the Balkans,they were influenced from the Hellenic south but they also couldn't avoid the influences from the Illyrian and Thracian sphere"
Petrova,Eleonora "The cults, symbolism and Deities in Paeonian and neighboring regions" in:

"Macedonia and the neighboring regions from 3rd to1st millennium b.c.-Papers presented at the international symposium in Struga-1997",Skopje,1999,pp.118

There's some very good discussion going on here - but there is also some borderline anti-social behavior.  Let's please keep the comments directed toward the subject and not the poster.  There's no reason to make derogatory coments about anyone whether you agree with them or not.

While the entire conversation skirts the edges of the issue - let us also please not allow this discussion devolve into a contemporary political discussion.  The contemporary Greek - FYROM (discussion? debate? argument?) is one that has already been banned on many history forums.  If we stay on topic and maintain a polite tone, that won't have to happen here.

Thanks everyone for your great contributions to the discussion, and your cooperation.

Back to Alexander.

>>comments directed toward the subject and not the poster/The contemporary Greek - FYROM (discussion? debate? argument?) <<

I had no intention of insulting anyone in specific, it was a general comment. Nor bringing up such a discussion, I was merely pointing out that even some of their renowned scholars do agree that the Macedonians were a Hellinic people despite the obvious reasons not to.

Hello everyone.  Sorry to have "abandoned" this thread (and the entire Forum, for that matter).  I had been on vacation as well as being sick.  It is this blasted virus I've been fighting for weeks, and now its lodged in my throat.   I'm am, however, well enough to write.

To Romano Nero

Romano, I have not been upset. Frustrated was more like it. I felt that what I’ve written was mostly misunderstood. After reading the last part of my last post, I am rather embarrassed as to how strong the language was. As you say, you ain't Greek and I ain't "Macedonian". I can see why "do your research" would sound rude in the strong language I used. I don’t know how many times I’ve been told such, and just take it with a grin.

I appreciate your effort. Agendas only get in the way of credibility. Scholars on both sides of the question take great pains to protect their reputations and lament when their work is taken to further the agendas of others.

The problem is with the interpretation of the "valid data". We may look at the same data and draw different conclusions, especially when we consider other data which we both consider pressing. Thus, what you consider "obvious" truth isn’t necessarily considered such, by the other side. In the same token, I have the same feeling with what I consider valid data I bring to the discussion. I feel that it is either ignored or trivialized. The real "devil" in establishing the "truth" is in the details. 

Yes, cultures tend to be conservative, but in the case of Macedonia itself, there has been a shift in culture several times as observed in the archaeological record. Hellenic culture doesn’t appear until quite late and the epigraphy of the "names" don’t appear until even later. If the archaeological record shows a long period of non-Greek traditions predominating Macedonia prior to the adoption of the Greek culture of the south, doesn’t that show that there was a period of Hellenization?

But that’s just it. We are not talking "decades" but rather the space of hundreds of years, to the time of most of the evidence of Greek names in the epigraphy of the region (4^th century BC) . During this time, not only is there a transformation of the material culture, but also an eclectic assortment of Greek views of the Macedonians. Thucydides himself even hints at some form of ethnic turmoil during this time when the Macedonian royal house began its conquest of eastern Macedonia all the way to the Axios and beyond.

From the internal evidence from Herodotus, the Greek athletes were not impressed that a Macedonian prince bore a Greek name, but wrote him off as a "barbarian". This would suggest that many Greeks viewed them as barbarians and that it was common knowledge amongst the Greeks that "foreigners" had Greek names. Herodotus took pains to "demonstrate" that at least the Macedonian royal house was Greek. This itself suggests that he was conscious that many of his readers still clung to the idea that the Macedonians were barbarians in the time of the writing of his history. A later contemporary of his, Thrasymachus, still referred to the Macedonian king as a "barbarian", not to mention the later Demosthenes.

Sharrukin 

>>As for Greek settlements in Illyria proper, I know of only two - Dyrrachium/Epidamnus and Apollonia, in the context of a much larger land area than that of Macedonia. So, again, as in the case of the Hellenization of non-Greek peoples you have mentioned, the Illyrians pose no comparison with the Macedonians. <<

It is at least ridiculous to suggest that even though it is a well known fact that the Hellines had populated half the mediterranean and established many colonies, we only find 2 in Illyria. Epidamnos and Apollonia just happen to be the most well known. This does not mean that they were the only two colonies. If you look up Ptolemy's Geography Book II, Chapter 15
Location of Illyria or Liburnia, and of Dalmatia
(Fifth Map of Europe)
You and anyone else interested will find many more place names that are of Hellinic origin. Not to mention king and tribe names and even many connections in language.

The very fact that none of the existing languages in the area show NO connection to the original place names can be concidered as strong evidence, that the Albanian and FYROMian populations have NO connection what so ever to the ancient Illyrians and Macedonians.

If you do another search you can find a Hellinic style helmet (dated 7th-6th cent BC) found in the regions of modern Albania and Yugoslavia. (see Shefton museum, university of Newcastle)

>>Add to this, the study of the corpus of Macedonian words, recorded by the classical authors, which showed that only 58 out of 153 words were shown to be Greek, but not just any Greek, but Attic Greek.<<

The problem for the supporters of this linguistic fiasco, is that not a single sentence of the alleged original Macedonian language does exist. All that is left are records of proper names (ALL HELLINIC IN ORIGIN) and isolated words, as E. Badian points out, these are hardly sufficient basis for judgments about linguistic affinities.

>>The Greeks saw their own land as having at one time non-Greek tribes all over Greece, and linguists point to place-names in Greece which have non-Greek roots, and yet in the historical period all the "names" are Greek.<<

LOL, good one.

How about Isocrates Panegyricus? You conveniently forgot him.

"For we did not become dwellers in this land by driving others out of it, nor by finding it uninhabited, nor by coming together here a motley horde composed of many races; but we are of a lineage so noble and so pure that throughout our history we have continued in possession of the very land which gave us birth, since we are sprung from its very soil."

>>Even in Crete, where its earliest ancient script cannot be deciphered in terms of Greek, has just about all "Greek" names in a later period.<<

What on earth are you talking about!!! If you are refering to Linear B' sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but its been deciphered since 1952 by M. Ventris (I'm sure many were very disappointed) and there has been alot of research that can also connect Linear A' to Hellinic but untill this is widely accepted as a fact, we can not prove nor argue about it.

Another argument you conveniently use, is that Demosthenes called Philip a "barbarian.

Why conveniently you might ask. Simply because either because it suits you to not mention or due to lack of knowledge you leave out the FACT that Demosthenes was part of the "party" that concidered that Philip would enslave and destroy Athens and for this reason attacked him. Actually such claims of bribery treason  and backstabbing were very common.

Another example that might help you understand what was going on at that time would be Aeschynes "against Timarchus". (we know for a fact that Aeschynes was hated by Demosthenes and his "party" because he signed the peace treaty in 346BC that ended the B' Athenean alliance) Where we find Timarchus attempting to convict Aeschynes for bribery (Philip was known for giving out gifts) and instead of preparing his defence he takes a totally different approach and attempts to prove Timarchus guilty of the law "grafi etairisios" and so he would be unable to press charges against him.

>>ithe Afghan-Pakistani border<<

Ahh, the Kalash. See this interesting site, you just might enjoy it. http://www.ishipress.com/kalashav.htm  

To "end" this, I'll just quote N.G.L Hammond:

"What language did these `Macedones' speak? The name itself is Greek in root and in ethnic termination. It probably means `highlanders', and it is comparable to Greek tribal names such as `Orestai' and `Oreitai', mean­ing 'mountain-men'. A reputedly earlier variant, `Maketai', has the same root, which means `high', as in the Greek adjective makednos or the noun mekos. The genealogy of eponymous ancestors which Hesiod recorded […] has a bearing on the question of Greek speech. First, Hesiod made Macedon a brother of Magnes; as we know from inscrip­tions that the Magnetes spoke the Aeolic dialect of the Greek language, we have a predisposition to suppose that the Macedones spoke the Aeolic dialect. Secondly, Hesiod made Macedon and Magnes first cousins of Hellen's three sons - Dorus, Xouthus, and Aeolus-who were the found­ers of three dialects of Greek speech, namely Doric, Ionic, and Aeolic. Hesiod would not have recorded this relationship, unless he had believed, probably in the seventh century, that the Macedones were a Greek­ speaking people. The next evidence comes from Persia. At the turn of the sixth century the Persians described the tribute-paying peoples of their province in Europe, and one of them was the `yauna takabara', which meant `Greeks wearing the hat'. There were Greeks in Greek city-states here and there in the province, but they were of various origins and not distinguished by a common hat. However, the Macedonians wore a dis­tinctive hat, the kausia. We conclude that the Persians believed the Macedonians to be speakers of Greek. Finally, in the latter part of the fifth century a Greek historian, Hellanicus, visited Macedonia and modi­fied Hesiod's genealogy by making Macedon not a cousin, but a son of Aeolus, thus bringing Macedon and his descendants firmly into the Aeolic branch of the Greek-speaking family. Hesiod, Persia, and Hellanicus had no motive for making a false statement about the language of the Macedonians, who were then an obscure and not a powerful people. Their independent testimonies should be accepted as conclusive" (N.G.L. Hammond, The Macedonian State, p.12-13).

And please tell me why have you, Borza and the rest of the supporters of this theory only recently "woken up" and began to argue about the Macedonian origin, where were you let's say 60-70yrs ago, where were the memories of your great past hidden, why was there absolutely NO reference of any kind to the origin of the Macedonians in any part of Slavic history before?

Linguistically, it doesnt exist real separation between dialect and language without a certain factor. The world usually takes into consideration the political factor in order to distinguish language from dialect. If we keep in mind that Pan-Hellenic region was constituted by smaller provinces like Attica, Lakaidemon,Corinthus etc and of course bigger provinces like Iperus, Thesprotia, Macedonia, Akarnania, Aitolia etc…greeks believed that they spoke different languages while actually all these languages weren’t anything else that dialects of greek language. Surely the most well-known from all of these Greek dialects was the dialect spoken in Athens, called ‘Attic Dialect’.

When someone was referring to the ‘ancient Greek language’ he meant Attic dialect and any comparison between Macedonian and ancient Greek, actually it is comparison between Macedonian and Attic dialect.The difference between Macedonian and Attica dialects is similar with the difference between two dialects of  German language. No one ever doubts that these two dialects  are of  German origin, even if they differ between them. Another ‘multidialect’ example is the linguistic arrangement  existing today in Italy. The official language of country  is the one of  Florence, but the population still speaks their own dialects. So why should ancient Greek be any different?

At that era, Greeks spoke more from 200 Greek dialects or languages as they called them. The most well-known from their dialects are: Ionian, Attica, Dorian, Aeolian, Cypriot, Arcadian, Aitolian, Macedonian and Lokric. Moreover we know that the Romans considered Macedonians as Greek-speaking.

Roman historian Titos Livius wrote”…Aitolians, Akarnanians and Macedonians, men of similar language, united or separated because of insignificant causes which are appearing from time to time..” (Livius, History of Rome, Book paragraph XXIX)

(…at the time of Roman invasion, their language was Greek, but two centuries before, it was different enough, but no so much that the two populaces wouldnt understand each other).

Hellinas

All this passage is saying is that Alexander identifies himself (or rather his father) as a Greek. Nothing suggests that Macedonia in this context was part of Greece. On the other hand, why does he even have to identify himself as Greek? Why not just say that he is the viceroy of Macedonia. This leaves the sense that he of necessity had to identify himself as Greek to distinguish himself from Macedonia, which at this period was Hellenizing, but was considered in the south as barbarous.

All this is talking about is the Macedonian royal house and Alexander in particular. Again, nothing here talks about Macedonia, itself.

Nothing here contradicts my "version" of history. The reality is this: Alexander I was judged a barbarian without hesitation by the athletes, despite his Greek name. Our source, Herodotus took great pains to "demonstrate" (his word) that the Macedonian royal house was Greek to the readers of his time. Again, none of the above passages quoted doesn’t even address the issue of Macedonia itself.

Again, what this passage is describing is the royal house being Greek, not Macedonia being Greek.

Yes, and neither one of these is a descendant of Hellen, Dorus, Xuthus, nor Aeolus. "Macedon" was a "cousin" to the Greeks, but was not of the direct line of Hellen. Interesting.

The first passage should be amended to read "Makednon", not "Macedonian".  "Makednon" is only associated with the Pindus Mountains, as far as Herodotus's usage is concerned.  Nowhere else is the form "Makednon" used except in those two passages.

I’ve seen three different translations of the second passage, and all can be read in different ways. This is a fourth with an interestng twist. Of one reading, the sense is the proto-Macednons were the proto-Greeks - Deucalion’s people; of two other readings, the Macednons are rendered as proto-Dorians; this fourth reading renders the name as a place-name - somewhere in the Pindus Range, known as "the heights" without reference to an ethnic group!!!. What is left is the sense that "the original Greeks (aka ‘proto-Dorians’)" briefly settled a place called ‘Makednia’ in the Pindus Mts.

If we are to consider the Macednons as proto-Dorians (based on two translations of the second passage), we must also consider other Greek points of view. Herodotus’s view is merely one of several other views which range from them being barbarians to Aeolians to Pelasgians. We note that Hesiod, almost 300 years before, made no lineal connection between "Macedon" and "Dorus", and thus Herodotus’s view should be considered what was believed by some during his time.

Herodotus’s contemporary, Hellanicus renders Macedon as a "son of Aeolus". The common denominator seems to be the perceptions of the two authors. Herodotus, being Dorian, saw something "Dorian-like" from the Macedonians, while Hellanicus, being Aeolian, saw them as Aeolians. This would rather show the apparent eclecticism of the Hellenizing of the Macedonians, thus not really revealing to the Greeks who they really were, rather than showing them to be Greek.

Another (modern) view stresses what is meant by Macednons being "proto-Dorians". Both Hammond and Borza shared the view that the Dorians and Macednons were groups in contact with each other in the Pindus Mountains prior to the migration of the Dorians. But while Hammond originally portrayed the Macedonians as speaking a "patois which was not recognizable as a normal Doric Greek but may have been a north-west-Greek dialect of a primitive kind", Borza characterized them as "Indo-European speakers of proto-Greek" "of northwest Greek stock". Herodotus and some of his contemporaries apparently saw something primitively "Dorian-like" of the Macedonians and pointed to the Pindus where the "split" supposedly occurred.

The physical evidence of Hellenization only really begins after 650 BC, and become predominant after 550 BC according to the archaeology. As I’ve mentioned before in another message, the process of Hellenization was complex. Initial Hellenization may have begun with these colonies, but it seems that the force of language may have come from the west, from regions of predominantly Northwest Greek dialect. We know of Greeks "living" in Macedonia, and perhaps it was they who brought about the final Hellenization of the Macedonians.

Sharrukin
>>All this is talking about is the Macedonian royal house and Alexander in particular. Again, nothing here talks about Macedonia, itself. <<
What you obviously don’t understand or simply don’t want to, is that the Argos he mentions is not the Argos located in the South but “Argos Orestikon” located near today’s “Kavala”. The documented existence of the name of Argos in the region of Orestias, is another piece of evidence that underlines the common ethnic and
linguistic roots of both the Makedonians and the other southern Greek
tribes. Consequently, in both cases, the name of "ARGOS" is an
”autochtonous” name and not borrowed from elsewhere. We could discuss when the “agones” began and where they first took place but I think that it is irrelevant.

>>Yes, and neither one of these is a descendant of Hellen, Dorus, Xuthus, nor Aeolus. "Macedon" was a "cousin" to the Greeks, but was not of the direct line of Hellen. Interesting. <<

Cousin, nephew, uncle what is this stuff and what difference does it make, since we see a direct connection. According to you the Magnites/Magnicians had no connection to the Hellines either since Magnus and Makednos were brothers.

>>The Orestians were a Molossian tribe according to Hecateus, not Macedonian<<

Actually, the Orestians were decendants of Orestes of Mycenaea, one of their most important cities was Argos Orestikon its significance already mentioned before.
I sense you are also attempting to draw a line between all Illirians and the Hellines. Where are the artifacts and inscriptions that prove this?
I think you should read about the founding of Illyria again since you’ve obviously forgotten. To cut a long story short, Cadmus' first child called Illyrius after whom Illyria is named. Of course I’m NOT suggesting that all Illyrians were Hellines but we do have a long list of Illyrian tribes of Hellinic origin.
And I’m sure you’ll start about who Cadmus was:
According to Plutarch (see his book on Herodotus), Gephyraiei, and Cadmus (= the founder of Thebes) and his ascendants (Oedipus, Eteoclees etc) were Hellines.
Gephyraei (or the democratic brothers Armodius and Aristogeiton = the killers of the tyrant Ipparchus etc) were part of the democratic people in Athens and Herodotus was on the side of tyrant Ipparchus.
According to Aristotle the killers of tyrant Ipparchus were not Phoenicians (not the Gephyraei), but Hellines, the democratic brothers Armodius and Aristogeiton, and for that the Athenians made celebrations in their honor
According to Euripides, Aeschylus etc on one side Cadmus and his ascendants (Eteoclees, Polinicis, Oedipus etc) were Hellines, they spoke Hellinic etc. and on the other hand from the ancient land of Phoenicia (where Master Aginor was, from where Cadmus came and established the town of Thebes, the prince Europe etc)
(Euripides. Phoenissae1-10), (26-29), (210-220), (278-279), (580), (640-670), (1220 -1230) (Aeschylus. Seven Against Thebes. 69-80)
Tacitus takes this a bit further, among other theories he said:
Evidence of this is sought in the name. There is a famous mountain in Crete called Ida; the neighbouring tribe, the Idaei, came to be called Judaei by a barbarous lengthening of the national name."

>> There was an Aigai in Achaea, in the northern Peloponnesus.<<

Sorry but this Aigai is the ancient name of the place known today as Virgina. The local Makedonian myths tell us that their first King was
Karanus, son of Temenos, the King of Argos. Temenos, along with
Kresfontes and Aristodemus were the three Doric leaders who invaded
the Mycenean Pelloponesus, and smashed the Mycenaean civilization.
Then they proceeded to divide the conquered territories between them,
with Kresfontes being given Messenia, Sparta and Laconia taken by
Aristodemus, and finally Temenos was given Argos. Following the death
of Temenos, the Princes argued about who should be king. One of them,
Feidon, managed to defeat his brothers in battle, and to usurp the
kingship. Karanos then, decided to find some other country where he
could be King. First, however he went to the Oracle of Delphi to ask
Pythias' advice. "You should find your kingdom there, were you will
find plenty of game and domestic animals, was her advice." Thus
Karanos and his entourage moved to the North, in search of suitable
land to establish his new kingdom. Finally, he discovered a green
valley, with a lot of game and goats, whereupon he thought that the
prophecy of Pythia has been fulfilled. Thus he built a city there,
which he named "AIGAE" [Greek: Aiga-goat].
A very similar version to this can be found in Euripides’ Achelaus.
Another interesting thing you might want to look up, is the fact that the “aiga”=goat was one of the sacred symbols in both cities and depicted on many Makedonians coins

>> I’ve seen three different translations of the second passage, and all can be read in different ways. <<

Here is the text in Hellinic, be so kind as to tell me how should this be translated and where do place names get their name from if not their founder and the people that populate them, beside the ones that are given some religious name like Athens?
“historeôn de heuriske Lakedaimonious kai Athênaious proechontas tous men tou Dôrikou geneos tous de tou Iônikou. tauta gar ên ta prokekrimena, eonta to archaion to men Pelasgikon to de Hellênikon ethnos. kai to men oudamêi kô exechôrêse, to de poluplanêton karta. [3] epi men gar Deukaliônos basileos oikee gên tên Phthiôtin, epi de Dôrou tou Hellênos tên hupo tên Ossan te kai ton Olumpon chôrên, kaleomenên de Histiaiôtin: ek de tês Histiaiôtidos hôs exanestê hupo Kadmeiôn*, oikee en Pindôi* Makednon kaleomenon: entheuten de autis es tên Druopida* metebê kai ek tês Druopidos houtô es Peloponnêson elthon Dôrikon eklêthê”

>>Hesiod, almost 300 years before, made no lineal connection between "Macedon" and "Dorus<<

Funny but I do recall you calling them cousins??? Anyway:

"And she (Thyia, sister of Hellen) conceived and bare to Zeus who delights in the thunderolt two sons, Magnes and Makedon, rejoicing in horses, who dwell round about Pieria and Olympos."
(Hesiod Catalogues of Women, fr.3)

"From the daughter of Deucalion sprang Magnes and Macedon, ancestors of the Magnesians and Macedonians, who are thus represented as
cousins of the true Hellenic stock."
(G.P.Goold, Hesiod-Homeric Hymns-Homerica (London: The Loeb Classical Library, 1936 -1995 reprint), p.xxii)

>> Borza characterized them as "Indo-European speakers of proto-Greek" "of northwest Greek stock".<<

Oh, yes the IE theory. I’ll avoid getting in to that right now and just stick to obvious evidence. There are others (see G. Kazarow and Vlad. Georgiev) that  attempted to show that Macedonians were member of a Thracoillyrian nation thus speaking Illyrian, a non-Hellinic language.
All needed to be mentioned here is Polyvios (XXVII 8,9) that wrote that Macedonians were using translators in their contacts with the Illyrians, which clearly implies that they were not speaking the same language.
If we are to look up the names of kings, place-names, customs, religion even their very name “Makedonians” are Hellinic (see “makednos' first mentioned in Homer's Odyssey (Od. H106),

>> The physical evidence of Hellenization only really begins after 650 BC<<

I fail to understand the use of the term Hellinization. Do you mean that they “adopted” Hellinic life-style, language, customs and religion, something that they were totally “alien” to before this time?
If you do mean that only then did the become accustomed to Hellinic culture and language, where are the finds to support this? How about including a list of artefacts and inscriptions that present anything but Hellinic culture in the area.

>> I specified my sources toward the beginning of the thread.<<

You also specified what your thoughts about the Makedonians is:
“I would be among the first to subscribe to the non-Greek origin of the Macedonians” (in your 2nd post)
But conveniently never provide any proof of non-Hellinic population and for some reason selectively use sources as seen in many FYROMian sites.
The FACT that we have the prior “attacks” on Hellinic people by Herodotus, obviously means nothing to your selective choices. (See Pausanians, he tells us that Herodotus wrote the story of a barbarian origin of the Thebeans because they took the Persians side and not the Greeks side in the Persian - Greek war.)
He expresses an open disdain for the Ionian colonies of A. Minor (e.g., “the pathetic Ionian behaviour”  (6.12) and for Ionians in general (“for the general low repute of the Ionians” (1.143.2-3). Nevertheless, Herodotus also scoffs at the idea of “ethnic purity.” The Ionians in Asia Minor comprised many different ethnic groups from Greece (1.146.1), All this simply because he was born in Halikarnassos and of Dorian stock.
Under no circumstance am I suggesting that he isn’t credible, but it is interesting.

>>Note 2: Nice Cut & Paste  http://forums2.vmacedonia.com/6686.html - http://forums2.vmacedonia.com/6686.html <<
Interesting I didn’t know that this argument has made such a great “hit”, even though it is the same argument and it was cut and pasted, it was done at least a year ago and has been used in a number of sites. But sorry this wasn’t my source, even though I don’t see why it matters. A good argument should be used.

Hellinas

I’ve looked at the Ptolemy’s geography as well as well as works on Illyria, and the only other Greek place-names in evidence are the following: Issa, Pharos, and Corcyra Nigra. The literature portrays this group of Greek settlements as being of later foundation. All other place-names were either Illyrian or "other". So, let’s put the evidence at five according to the Geography.

A more ancient source, The Periplus (©. 350 BC),records the coastal geography and ethnology of ancient Illyria. It was quite specific in naming places which it considered "Greek". These were Heraclea, Pharos, Issa, Epidamnus, and Apollonia.

In either case, Illyria is still different from Macedonia. Its culture remained non-Hellenic and the literature considers artefacts of Greek origin found in classical Illyria as either being imports or imitations.

Whether "existing languages" show connection or not to the original place-names is beyond the scope of this thread. We are not talking about Albanians or FYROMians. We are talking about Macedonians (and Illyrians).

There are other fine examples of artefacts of original Greek manufacture in ancient Illyria, but the literature considers them either as imports or imitations. Illyria remained culturally non-Hellenic. The Glasinac Culture which began about 1300 BC in Illyria, expanded to its greatest extent covering the regions of Paeonia and Macedonia between about 800 to 650 BC and continued to exist after its recession back into Illyria, until about 300 BC. The greatest Greek cultural impact, called the "Greco-Illyrian" phase, occurred between c. 550 and 450 BC, but here again, the evidence only shows that the Greek artefacts were imported. Macedonia, in contrast, after the recession of the Glasinac Culture, became almost thoroughly Hellenized (i.e. adopted the culture of the Greeks, instead of just importing Greek artefacts). In the same token that Greek artefacts were found in Illyria, Macedonia received artefacts and cultural motifs of Thracian origin during the period of Hellenization .

Virtually everything we know about the non-Hellenic languages of the Balkans comes from either place-names, personal names or words recorded as such by the classical authors. No one is going to challenge whether such a word, personal name or place-name is either "Illyrian" or "Thracian" and not Greek using purely linguistic methods, but if the same treatment is used considering "Macedonian", as Crossland has done, someone cries "fiasco". On the subject of "proper names" no one can say that they are "all" Hellenic in origin, and what must not be forgotten is that the evidence of personal names in the epigraphy of the region are relatively late in the historical record. Some names could be Hellenic but could also be foreign, considering that we are speaking about a region of various ethnicities, some quite close to Hellenic affinity, since, if we consider the Phrygians as originally possessing Macedonia, their language was close to Greek. In terms of place-names, I would need to remind you that most of the districts of Macedonia were named after non-Greek peoples, such as Pieria, Bottiaea, Mygdonia, etc. The region which included Pella was originally Paeonian, and the region of Pelagonia was originally Brygian. Both of these peoples were said to have had hegemony over Macedonia before the rise of the Argaeadae.

Nothing needs to be said about having a "motive for making false statement" about Macedonian identity. It is the nature of the evidence itself which is questioned.

The "theory" itself is ancient. Arrian speaks about "the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian" (Book 2.11), and Strabo speaks about the population of Macedonia as being "barbarians"or "barbarous" (Book 7.7.1; Book 8.1.1).

For more recent works, I have an original copy of the The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, Mythology, and Geography (1850) which defined Macedonia as "a country in Europe, north of Greece...", and defined the Macedonians as "never regarded by the other Greeks as genuine Hellenes. Moreover, was only in the south of Macedonia that the Greek language was spoken..."

So, no. There was no "wake up". The idea that Macedonians weren’t Greeks had always been there.

But that is obviously false. In no uncertain terms, is that the "Argos" referred to, was the Dorian Tenemid Argos of the Peloponnese. This identification is consistent with other classical sources. They always pointed to Peloponnesian Argos as the source of the dynasty.

But we are still talking about a royal house, not an ethnicity or language. The Argeadae went to great lengths to prove that they were Greeks, but not just any Greeks, but Argives, which during the 7^th century had the most prestige among the Greeks for their leadership under Pheidon, and was among the most ancient seats of kingship in all Greece. Subsequently, the Argives were supplanted by the Spartans in the leadership role. The Argeadae, "sons of Argaeos" may have used their own name to make that connection.

In regards to Orestias, it must be commented that it was not a Macedonian canton, but was actually a Molossian one. The Orestae, being a mixed Greco-barbarian population, and having as well as having a royal house of its own claiming Boiotian ancestry, would have obviously not have been an ideal place to claim Greek ancestry. That being said, why not Thessalian Argos, or Amphilochian Argos? For that matter, why not Paeonian Argos, five miles northwest of Stobi?

But in what way? All those ‘Argoses’ could have been named such because of the fame and prestige of Peloponnesian Argos. Otherwise "argos" as a Greek descriptive could have meant "shining", "glistening", "bright"; or "white".

One of the ways the Greeks related their origins was through geneologies baring the names of the Greek tribes. The tribes recognized as Greek (i.e. the Dorians, Aeolians, Ionians, and Achaeans) were said to have descended from Hellen. The Magnesians and Macedonians were not recognized as such because they defied this classification. Time passed by and first the Magnesians were Aeolianized by the Thessalians, and later the Macedonians were Hellenized from all quarters of the Greek world. The much later Greek geneologies (up to 300 years later) reflected these changes.

This was a later invention to attempt a more prestigious past. The name "Orestae" is a natural Greek word meaning "mountaineers". The Orestae was in a mountainous region. In logic, it is the simpler explanation that is probably the truth. .

Sense is irrelevant. The "line" was "drawn" by the ancient Greeks themselves. I merely reflect the ancient evidence.

The artefacts are legion. See above in my discourse about the Illyrians. Otherwise please refer to The Illyrians by John Wilkes.

Hehe. Oh no I did not.

I’m quite sure that Greeks travelled into Illyrian lands during Mycenaean times and founded communities, but the ancient evidence shows that culturally, the Mycenaeans did not make a true cultural impact on the Illyrians. These first Hellenes were assimilated by the Illyrians.

For the nature of the later Greek impact on the culture of the Illyrians, please refer above to my discussion on the Illyrians.

I have no problem accepting Greeks of non-Greek origins. So we have Phoenicians which within a short time became Greeks.

But now, we need to put certain things in perspective regarding the Cadmus connection with Illyria. This particular legend is very late in history, dating to about the 2^nd century BC. Another theory known to Appian of Alexandria, 2^nd century AD, makes Illyrius, son of Polyphemus and Galatea. He in fact stated that he knew "numerous mythologies" regarding Illyrian origins, but said that the Polyphemus myth was the "most acceptable". It is thus more than likely that the Cadmus legend really only reflected later Greek influence in Illyria.

The Hellenistic period in Illyria began by about 300 BC. This was just preceded by a series of Illyrian-Macedonian wars which ultimately broke the military power of the Illyrians, and concluded in the Hellenistic cultural influence from Epirus. Prior to the earliest mention of "Illyrius, son of Cadmus", we do have an earlier legend recorded by Herodotus (Book 5.61) in which those Cadmeans which survived the destruction of Thebes by the Argives migrated to the Illyrian Encheles, many generations after Cadmus supposedly migrated to the same tribe to father "Illyrius". The earlier legend was probably connected to how the Boeotians gained their name, from another Illyrian tribe called the Boioi, just south of the Encheles and north of Mt. Boion, in northeastern Epirus. Therefore the "Cadmus - Illyrius myth"was a later invention which only reflected a time when Illyria became Hellenized.

The list of Olympic winners presented was given as is, without provenance. Based on the objections I listed, this list looks like a desperate attempt to prove something that is not there; just an arbitrarily picked list. The only thing of substance is the list of royal winners. How is the reader to know that the Aigai listed is Macedonian Aigai and not Achaean Aigai? Where did this list come from?

There is already a problem here. The "Karanus myth" is later than the Perdiccas tradition, the latter of which Herodotus expressly said was given him by the Macedonians themselves. Therefore the "Karanus myth"was simply an attempt to give the Macedonian rulers a greater connection to the founder of Dorian Argos himself. Even later, we have those who attempted a reconciliation of the "Karanus myth" with the Perdiccas tradition by making Perdiccas the third successor of "Karanus".

This "newer" Macedonian tradition contradicts the Greek tradition. For starters the original Greek version places Pheidon "tenth from Temenus". The successor of Temenus was Ceisus and his successor was Medon.

In the original version, as recorded by Herodotus, it was Perdiccas who founded Aigai.

Yes, and in this version, it wasn’t Perdiccas or Karanus who was the first king but an Archelaus!!! Really, if we have contradictory stories about the origins of the royal family, this is enough to draw suspicion as to their origins. We already have documentation as to Greek attitudes to the Macedonian royal house and it shows that despite their Greek names, they were still considered "barbarians".

I do not dispute place-names of Greek origin in Macedonia. We already have narrative documentation of Greeks "resident" in Macedonia. We also have narrative documentation of Macedonians bearing Greek names being called "barbarians". Just because a city has a Greek name doesn’t mean that they were Greeks.

I do not have the arrogance to second guess the divergent readings of the translators, but I will respond to your question regarding place-names. What is generally agreed is that Herodotus is describing the direct descent and movement of the Dorians from Hellen in Phthia, to illustrate his idea that the Dorians were "always" Greeks. We must note that the word Makednon is only used in association with the Pindus, whether as a place-name or as an ethnic name. It was never used to designate Macedonia itself. It is a known fact that an ethnic name can expand to include a large region where most of the population is of diverse origins. Those regions initially conquered by the Argeadae were virtually all under barbarous tribes. Where the Argead state began "in another part of Macedonia" was near a place whose name was of Brygian origin, the Gardens of Midas.

As to how "Makednons" related to Dorians, neither Hammond nor Borza considered the Makednons in the direct line of the Dorians, but rather a group in association with the Dorians in the Pindus range, where the Makednons were influenced by the Dorians. It must be duly noted that the Macedonians in Herodotus were never referred to as Macednons and that Herodotus never really defined the "Macedonians" The only place which merely suggests how Herodotus defined Macedonia was in Book 7.131, where Xerxes was in Macedonia, where he sent ambassadors "to Hellas".

The operative word was "lineal" as opposed to collateral

Its as good a definition as any. Note the word "true"

I never claimed that the Macedonians were Illyrians. Aside from Illyrians and Thracians there was another ill-defined group of Balkan peoples. These included the Paeonians and Brygians, among others in Macedonia. If it is true that the Phrygians were by origin, Brygians, and that they had domination over Macedonia (as told by Herodotus), and that the Phrygian language is closely related to Greek, then we have cause to suspect that a language (or languages) closely related to Greek was/were spoken in Macedonia. The archaeological evidence from the period 1150 to 800 BC does show a culture originating from the region of the classical Brygians predominating Macedonia, including the site of Vergina (Aegae) itself.

See above for explanations of those names.

Yes. The culture of Macedonia prior to the rise of the Argeadae was of non-Greek origin. My primary source is Hammond himself in The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. III Part I: The Prehistory of the Balkans; The Middle East; And the Aegean World, Tenth to Eighth Centuries BC, pages 642-656. This is the most comprehensive treatment of culture and archaeology of Macedonia prior to Hellenization, that I’ve found. You will find this reference and another more recent treatment of the physical evidence in Borza on the bottom of page 1 of this thread.

Strange - either they are Greek or "FYROMian" sites. The reality, is that this is mere coincidence. I stand on my own reasoning and research. You obviously find nothing proving anything and I’m not surprised. For me, if anything, if I can at least, with facts and reasonable arguments impress on those who want to inquire on the identity of the ancient Macedonians, to cast a healthy doubt on their so-called Hellenism, then that is sufficient.

You fail to mention that Herodotus had a high regard to the Athenians. Be as it may, if Herodotus "attacks" the "ethnic purity" of the Greeks, the FACT is that he only echoes the majority opinion of the ancient Greeks. In your eyes, I guess, most ancient Greek authors had this "self-hatred" of their ethnic identity. What bothers me is this insistence of "ethnic purity". Nobody is "pure". What bothers me equally is the "imposition" of this modern idea of what it is to be Greek on how the ancient Greeks saw themselves. The ancient Greeks accepted origins from non-Greek sources. It did not bother their self-identity as Hellenes.

Sharukin, the Greeks called "bastards" as "sons of Aeolus", thus "children of the wind"!

Thought I might bring a new dimension to the discussion

If I may step in for a second? Thank you.

Although I do disagree with Sharukkin on the issue (wether ancient Macedonians were Greek or not) I have enjoyed reading his replies. He does indeed start from a wrong premise. I mean he is perfectly and absolutly convinced that Ancient Macedonians were non-Greeks to start with. It is a common fallacy among historians and archeologists to formulate a theory or draw a conclusion, and refuse to look for new and contradicting material. And as a common fallacy, it's perfectly excusable, I myself am not immune on this. Besides that, his solid and fair debating techniques, and his knowledge of history, cannot be questioned.

Furthermore, he had a very interesting exchange of posts with a few posters, with loads upon loads of data, sources and evidence from both sides. Meaning, any intelligent bystander can draw his own conclusions from this exchange and nobody has to take either Sharrukins or Romanos or anyone elses position for granted but they can check their sources and material and find out for themselves.

but the evolution of the topic has gone way off, and it is now just another battlefield involving vulgar propaganda and rather immature "arguments" and Sharrukin is right to protest.

I would like to ask all parts involved to either to go back to an intelligent exchange of valid data, or seize polluting a good topic that has provided us all with more insight on this subject than a 100 topics on this matter.

I would like to commend the moderators for recognizing the value of this thread.  Far too many valid questions and responses had been posted on this thread to allow it to be spoiled by the most recent posts.  At first, when I saw that this thread was closed, I was going to post a protest to them, and if nothing was changed, I was going to leave AllEmpires, with the idea that AllEmpires had been taken over by those with "bias agendas".   After seeing other threads closed because of the same subject matter, I felt I had to post a spirited defence of this thread (since then deleted, which is okay) to ensure that the proper authorities saw this thread for what it is.  I'm just glad that the moderators were able to see this.  It would have been a travesty to shut it down and bury it. 

Now back to business.

Hellinas   

I was very well aware what Strabo said about Macedonia being part of Greece, and there was a reason behind this, which I will address in a forthcoming post.  But what you failed to mention, (and what I was addressing) was the FACT that Strabo considered Macedonia although "indisputably Greece" was "held by the barbarians".  This is in contradistinction with Thessaly which was in "certain parts" held by barbarians.  In that whole section, there is NO MENTION of Romans, but of Thracians, Illyrians, and Epirotic tribes.  To further accent what I've written, if your interpretation was correct, then he should have written that the whole of Greece was "held by barbarians" since Greece was conquered by the Romans in 148 BC. 

Lets read the very first part of this passage.  "I began my description by going over all the western parts of Europe comprised between the inner and the outer sea;1 and now that I have encompassed in my survey all the barbarian tribes in Europe as far as the Tanaïs and also a small part of Greece, Macedonia," Note that he says that Macedonia was "a small part of Greece" and was included with "all the western parts of Europe" inhabited by "all the barbarian tribes in Europe".   We also note that this "small part of Greece" was included in Book 7 with the rest of non-Greek Europe, while the "remainder of the geography of Greece" was described in Book 8.  Why was Macedonia, "small" as it was included with the rest of non-Greek Europe?  Why did he treat it with the rest of Europe?  The answer is quite obvious - it was the one part of Greece having a mostly (if not totally) barbarian population.  "Macedonians" not being mentioned, was quite unnecessary. 

I made a mistake here.   It wasn't Arrian 2.11 where I quoted "the old racial rivalry between Macedonian and Greek" but rather Arrian 2.10.

> >

Hellinas, it is your own BIAS that has prevented you from reading the obvious contexts of the above passages.  YOU wanted to see what you WANTED to see.  While I grant you, rightfully, that you do indeed issue valid challenges, you show a pattern of citing passages in most cases out of their context.  Add to this, your modern chauvenistic perception of Greek identity, as compared to how the ancient Greeks viewed themselves, and everything you try to prove is colored by that misconception.  All I ask you to do is to study carefully your material (and mine) before responding to my challenges.  You will become the more credible without those ideas. 

In my next post I will address the reason WHY Macedonia was considered in this late period a part of Greece.

Sharrukin, you are already the moderator of this forum, it means you can lock, unloack, delete, move, edit, ... every thread that you want, meanwhile Hellinas who was banned, was unbanned to continue this discussion.

If you leave AE then I will close the whole forum!

The short answer is, "Macedonian".  According to the exhaustive Greek-English Lexicon (Liddell and Scott, original editors), we have the terms makedonizo, "speak Macedonian" and makedonisti, "in Macedonian". 

The problem, is what is meant by "Macedonian".  According to The Oxford Classical Dictionary, the identity of Macedonian language is "disputed", and the Cambridge Ancient History, vol. III, part 2 characterizes the study as a "notorious problem". 

While some are content to proclaim the problem solved by citing the fact that only Greek inscriptions are found in Macedonia, and that the Macedonians bore Greek names, the narrative evidence suggests that Greeks from the south colonized parts of Macedonia and were described separately from Macedonians (Thucydides, Book 4.124), and that the Greeks had long known that barbarians can have Greek names (Herodotus, Book 5.22). 

The latest evidence suggests that, despite how some would characterize Macedonian as Doric or Aeolic, the Greek dialect spoken in Macedonia was in fact of the Northwest Greek variety.  The epigraphic evidence only shows that Greek was spoken in Macedonia, but not that Macedonian was Greek, as well as showing that the evidence of Greek is mostly of 4th century BC date and later.  The evidence of Greek through the inscriptions is sparse from an earlier period.  This becomes the more poignant if one considers that the Macedones, themselves, only possessed a small portion of Macedonia, while the majority of the land was possessed by Epirotian, Thracian, and other tribes of indeterminent origin.  Greek which may have been the lingua franca to communicate with these tribes became the language which bound all these tribes in the Macedonian federal state.

Some love to quote Livy 31.29, to demonstrate that the Macedonians and Greeks spoke the same language.  It may well be, that by 200 BC when this Aetolian speech was given, Greek may have superceded Macedonian.  Two years later, the "Greeks" wanted the Macedonians "out of the whole of Greece" (Polybius, Book 18.2), the implication being that they were not Greeks or were not considered part of Greece.  It is curious that the Macedonian king did not protest that his people were Greeks, but instead responded by accusing the Aetolians as not being all Greek. (Polybius, Book 18.5).

Of the 153 Macedonian words stated as such from the ancient sources, only 58 could be positively identified as Greek - of Attic derivation, and therefore of non-native origin.  Another 44 words could be Greek but also could be from other Indo-European languages, and yet another 51 have no satisfactory Greek etymology.  What characterizes this group of Macedonian words is that they show a phonology consistent with that of Illyrian, Thracian, and Phrygian (the Phrygians, according to Herodotus, came from Macedonia).  This doesn't suggest that Macedonian was one of these languages, but only that it shows a pattern characteristic of Balkan languages other than Greek.  The identity of Macedonian thus remains open. 

Now,i do not plan to make an awful debate.At this time i am occupying myself with Classical Hellas and the Pelopponesian War,not with Ancient Macedonia.I've decided to post some information and thoughts from a more linguistic approach and in the future with your help too, i can find some more information.A prolong.

As we already know,the Ancient Hellenic language is devided into 3 dialects,the Ionian,the Dorian and the Aeolian one.But to which of those 3 dialects the Ancient Macedonians did belong?Unfortunately,the prehistory does not give us much clues about the Ancient Macedonian people.Now if we take Herodotus,the name Macedonian is identified with the Dorian tribe.As he says:

"The Dorian race was wandered very much.In the years of king Deykalion(Äåõêáëßùí),it was inhabiting the Fthiotida(Öèéþôéäá),in the years of Dorus(Äþñïò),son of Hellin,it was inhabiting the land which was under the mountains of Ossa(Ïóóá) and Olympus(Ïëõìðïò) called Istiaiotida(Éóôéáéþôéäá)'when they were kicked out by the Kadmians(Êáäìåßïé),it was inhabiting Pindos(Ðßíäïò) and it was called Macednon(Ìáêåäíüí).The same historian reports that in the battle of Salamina took part from Pelopponesus,the Spartans,the Corinthians,the Sikyans(Óéêõþíéïé),the Epidayrians(Eðéäáýñéïé),the Troizinias(ÔñïéæÞíéïé) "which was a Dorian and Macedonian nation,and they had come to Pelopponesus from the Erineus(ÅñéíÝïò) and Pindos(Ðßíäïò) and Dryopida(Äñõüðéäá).

So according to Herodotus,Macedonians were Dorians.From these pericopes,where for the first time the Macedonians are mentioned,it seems that the Hellens of the 5th century considered  Macedonians to be a part of the Dorian tribe,which previously used to live around Pindos and from where they spread to other territories,not only east,for example in modern Northen Hellas but also south up to Pelopponesus.

Then again according to Herodotus, we have Alexander,son of Amyndas(Áìýíôáò),saying to ambassadors of the Persian emperor :"Announce to your king that a Hellen,king of Macedonians,has welcomed you friendly".The same Alexander says at the Athenians:"Athenians,.....I would not talk,if i was not very worried about the w-h-o-l-e Hellas.Because i am myself a Hellen the gender from all along, and i would not want to see Hellas from free to become a slave."Now,what does the word w-h-o-l-e possibly mean?

When Alexander sent after the battle of Granikos as thankfull gifts to the Gods 300 Persian panoplies,he did not sent them to Pella of Macedonia but to Parthenon with the historic epigraph"ÁëÝîáíäñïò Öéëßððïõ êáß ïé ¨Åëëçíåò ðëÞí Ëáêåäáéìïíßùí,áðü ôùí ôÞí Áóßáí êáôïéêïýíôùí".Alexander and the Hellens.And the Macedonians?Where are the Macedonian etairoi(åôáßñïé),the flower of the Macedonian aristocracy,the phalanx of the Macedonian army,the leadership of the Hellenic army,the creators of that success?

If we search the history of people on Earth,it is very difficult to find an example of a royal family whose people faithfully follows it and that that family insists to declare in a very provoking manner that it is foreign to the country it stays and that it ignores the sacrifices and loyalty  of it's people,so that it does not mention it at all during the moment of the triumph.

Many historians claimed that the House of Macedonia might be Hellenic but the people of Macedonia might not be Greek-speaking all along and that it was Hellenized by them after some time.

1.That specific time it cannot be easily believable that a Hellenic royal House was in a position to conquer and to rule a foreign and a foreign language speaking nation,a House surrounding from a native foreign language speaking military aristocracy which never wanted to brush away the foreign ruler.

2.Even if we admit that event, what  would happen as a natural consquense would be that the Hellenic House would be assimilated from it's subjects and never the opposite.As an example the Roman emperors with the whole Roman aristocracy of the Byzantium empire were Hellenized by the concrete Hellenism of the Eastern Roman empire.

3.That the Macedonian kings imposed to their citizens the Hellenic language as a foreign language it would very difficult to learn it so quickly and at the same time not preserve it's own language.As we know Titus Libius mentions that in the 3rd century B.C.,the Macedonians were speaking the same language with the Aitolians(Áéôïëïýò) and Akarnanes(ÁêáñíÜíåò),or else Hellenic.

I will continue later...        &nbs p;         &nbs p;         &nbs p;   

The scientific research not having a Macedonian manuscript,faced it's attention to the linguistic material which has a smaller apodictive value,but it still remains valuable and very important for the clarification of the problem.That material is different words handed over in Hellenistic and Roman texts as dialectical Macedonians.Those words are found in the epistles of Alexander the Great,others come from a collection made by the Macedon grammatical Amerias(Áìåñßáò), and most of them,almost 140,have been treasured by the Hellenistic lexicographer of the 5th century  A.C,Isicius(Çóý÷éoò).

Inside his emormous vocabulary of the Ancient Hellenic language,Isicius put some words who found to be reffered as Ancient Macedonians in older texts or in the collection of Amerias.He didn't that only for the Macedonian language but also for other Hellenic dialects and foreign languages.For example:

áãüñ ' áåôüò ÊñÞôåò (Kretans)

áã÷ßîáé ' åããßóáé ÊñÞôåò  (Kretans)

áäíüí ' áãíüí Öñýãåò (Frygians)

áæÝíá ' ðþãùíá Öñýãåò (Frygians)

áéêïýäá ' áéó÷ýíç ËÜêïíåò (Lacones)

Üääáõïí ' îçñüí ËÜêùíåò (Lacones)

Üâáãíá ' ñüäá Ìáêåäüíåò (Macedonians)

áâáñý ' ïñßãáíïí Ìáêåäüíåò (Macedonians)

áâñïýFåò ' ïöñýò Ìáêåäüíåò (Macedonians)

áãêáëßò ' Ü÷èïò êáß äñÝðáíïí Ìáêåäüíåò (Macedonians)

áäÞ ' ïõñáíüò Ìáêåäüíåò (Macedonians)

áäñáßá ' áéèñßá Ìáêåäüvåò (Macedonians) etc.

The Ancient  Macedonian language had some non-Hellenic elements,that's obvious for a nation which was forced to fight for it's independence and integrity against other foreign nations in the crossroad of the civilizations,the Balkan peninsula.Which are those non-Hellenic elements?While in all the Ancient Hellenic dialects(the Ionian,the Aeolian,the Dorian)) the Indo-European consonants bh,dh,gh are represented as ö,è,÷,in the Macedonian language,according to Isicius' vocabulary, they are represented as â,ã,ä:

1.â instead of ö:ÂÜëáêñïò instead of öáëáêñüò,Båñåíßêá instead of Öåñåíßêç,ÂåñåêñÜôçò instead of ÖåñåêñÜôçò,êåâáëÜ instead of êåöáëÞ,ÂÝññïéá instead of Öåñáß,áâñïýFåò instead of ïöñýåò,íßâá instead of íßöá(=snow).

2.ä instead of è:áäÞ instead of áéèÞñ,áäñáßá instead of áéèñßá,äÜíïò instead of èÜíáôïò,äþñáî instead of èþñáî,äåóìüò insted of èåóìüò.êáäáñüò instead of êáèáñüò,ÄÜññùí instead of ÈÜñóùí etc...

3.ã instead of ÷:áãÝñäá instead of Ü÷åñäïò,ÌÜãáò instead of ÌÜ÷áò,ÃáéôÝáò instead of ×áéôÝáò,Êüññáãïò instead of Êüñóá÷ïò etc... 

The results of the research showed that only the Macedonian language is different to the consonants of the other Hellenic dialects.This,however,does not make it necessarily non-Hellenic since the similarities are much more than the differences,as you can see from above.

If  Ancient Macedonian were not a Hellenic dialect,it must be a Thraco-Illyric because it was the only language in the Balkans that bordered the Hellenic one.According to a historical report by Polibius 28,8,9,the King of Macedonia Perseus,fighting against the Romans,sent to the King of Illyria Genthius(ÃÝíèéïò) as ambassadors to make an alliance "Áäáßïí êáß óýí ôïýôù ôïí Ãëáõêßáí,Ýíá ôùí óùìáôïöõëÜêùí,êáß ôñßôïí ôïí Éëëõñéüí(Ðëåýñáôïí) äéÜ ôü ôÞí äéÜëåêôïí åéäÝíáé ôÞí Éëëõñßäá".He sent along with the ambassadors a translator who knew the Illyric language,an action totally useless if the Macedonian language was a Thraco-Illyric.I will continue further....

The Indo-European languages have their origin in one common-mother language but they become different with the geographical stretch of the Indo-European nations to teams,according to basic vocal decays,which appeard after the passage of thousand of years in some of those languages.The Indian,Persian,Armenian,Balto-Slavic and Thraco-Illyric turned the uranic consonants k,g of the mother-language to sibilant e.g. the k to s and the g to z,while in all other sisters-languages,like the Hellenic,Latin,German,Keltic etc they preserved them like they were.So to the Hellenic åêáôüí and to the Latin centum corresponds the Indian satam,to the Hellenic êëýôïò corresponds the Indian strutas,to the Hellenic êáñäßá corresponds the Armenian sirt,to the Hellenic êëÝïò corresponds the Slavic slovo,to the Hellenic ãé-ãíþ-óêù corresponds the Slavic znati,to the Hellenic ãõíÞ corresponds the Slavic zena,to the Hellenic ÷åéìþí corresponds the Slavic zima.In order to communicate with each other the linguists named the team of those languages who have sibilant consonants with their type of åêáôüí(100) as SATEM languages and those who have the Latin type of åêáôüí(100) CENTUM languages.

The Hellenic language is a CENTUM one and the Thraco-Illyric a SATEM one.So if  Ancient Macedonian were a Thraco-Illyric language,then in those words where the Hellenic language presents uranic consonants,the Macedonian must present sibilant consonants.This does never happen.The Macedonian language even in this basic vocal characteristic agrees with the Hellenic and not with the Thraco-Illyric language.Continuing further.... 

But of course it is not only the different evolution of the uranic consonants which separates the Ancient Macedonian language from the Thraco-Illyric and attaches it to the Hellenic language.In all the decays with which Hellenic were separated from the other sisters-languages to a self-existent language and with which it created it's physiognomy,the Ancient Macedonian attaches with the Hellenic one and comes to a antithesis with the Thraco-Illyric:

1.Only the Hellenic language in Europe turned the Indo-European s before vowel to h,that is to rough breathing e.g sex-Ýî,serpo-Ýñðù etc.The same with Macedonian e.g Áäáßïò,¨Áäéìïò,ÁëéÜêìùí,¨Áñðáëïò,Åñêßôáò,Çìáèßá.If the Macedonian was Thraco-Illyric,the names should start with s e.g óÜäéìïò,óáëéÜêìùí etc..

2.Only the Hellenic eliminated the Indo-European V,that is the digamma (F) e.g FÝñãïí-Ýñãïí,FåóðÝñá-ÅóðÝñá,FåóèÞò-åóèÞò.The same for the Macedonian language e.g áFïñôÞ-áïñôÞ,FÜñíéóóá-¨Áñíéóóá,ËáFáãïò-ËÜãïò,Áíèåìü Fåíôò-Aíèåìïýò,ÐéåñFñßá-Ðéåñßá.

3.Ïnly the Hellenic language in the Balkans eliminated the Indo-European j between vowels e.g ôñÝjåò-ôñÝåò-ôñåßò,öýjù-öýù etc...The same for the Macedonian one as the following words witness âáäåëåãåß,âñåíäßåôáé etc.

4.Only the Hellenic language similated the j from a previous consonant e.g Üëjïò-Üëëïò,âÜëjù-âÜëëù.The same for the Macedonian one e.g ÐÝëëá,óÜñéóá,Ôýñéóóá.

5.Only in the Hellenic language the group ô+j was turned into double ó e.g ðüôjïò-ðüóóïò-ðüóïò.The same in the Macedonian language e.g ëéôjüò-ëéóóüò,¨Åäåôjá-¨Åäåóóá.

There another 9  vocal decays but i think those already written are enough.If you want the others too,then i will post them.The question is that how it is logically possible two languages with so many similarities to be separated because of only one difference,that is â,ã,ä instead of ö,÷,è?Let's take the modern Hellenic dialect of Southern Italy.Because of an Italian impact,it spells d instead of ä,and g istead of ã.For only this reason,it is not a Hellenic dialect but an Italian one?  

Another thought:If Macedonians were Hellenized with the introduction of the Attic dialect during the 5th century,then their names should be introducted from Southern Hellas.And what more natural than starting to name their children with glorious Athenian names,or at least common names of Southern Hellas like Agamemnon,Achilles,Aias,Odysseus,Diomedes,Sophocles,Euripide s,Miltiades,Themistocles, Aristides etc.But this does not happen.The 200 names of the Ancient Macedonian kings and nobles,along with the names of the Macedonian officers who took part in the Alexander's campaign,according to historic writers,are Hellenic not only in their meaning but also in their grammatical form,but unknown or totally rare or declarative of unglorious people in the rest of Hellas:ÁëÝîáíäñïò,Áìýíôáò,Áìýíôùñ,Áíôßãïíïò,Áíôßï÷ïò,¨Áñðáëï ò,Áññáâáßïò,Áññéäáßïò,Áñ÷Ýëáïò,¨Áôôáëïò,

ÂåñåêñÜôçò,Âßëéððïò,Âïññáßïò,Âñßóùí,Âñïìåñüò,ÄÜäùí,ÄÜññùí,Åê áôåñüò,ÊÜëáò,ÊÜñáííïò,ÊÜóóáäñïò etc.

Also,the names of the Macedonian months are all Hellenic,but totally different of the other Hellens:Äßïò,Áðåëëáßïò,Áõäíáßïò,Ðåñßôéïò,Äýóôñïò,ÎÜíäéêïò,Áñ ôåìßóéïò,Äáßóéïò,ÐÜíáéìïò,Ëþéïò,Ãïñðéáßïò, Õðåñâåñåôáßïò.From where they took them,if it was not their old linguistic legacy?

Spartakus

Actually, you were next in the sequence.  I might not be able to cover everything in one post, so I ask you to bare with me.  It might take several posts.

Actually four - including Northwest Greek.

It's probably more accurate to say, 'to which of those dialects did the ancient Greek population of Macedonia belong?'

Actually that's not what he's saying.  It is unfortunate that the second passage you cited uses the name "Macedonian", which is not accurate.  Like the first passage, the name used in the second passage is also Makednon.  Two things need to be observed here.

1.  Herodotus always uses the term Makednon as another name for Dorians.  He never uses the term for Macedonians, which is always Makedones.  The terms are never mixed and thus are mutually exclusive.

2.  Herodotus never relates Macedonians to Dorians.  In all his discussion on the Macedonians themselves, he never specifies Dorian origins.

If we include "Macedon" as an eponym representing the Macedonians, the first time they are mentioned is in Hesiod, almost 300 years before.  In this reference, "Macedon" was not of the line of Hellen, but Dorus, Aeolus, and Xuthus, were.  "Macedon" was "cousin" to the Greeks, but not of the line of "Dorus". 

The contemporary of Herodotus, Hellanicus of Lesbos considered "Macedon, son of Aeolus" and thus Macedonians were Aeolians, since they were the immediate northern neighbors of the Thessalians, who spoke an Aeolian dialect, while many others considered them "barbarians", as related by Herodotus, regarding Alexander I's participation in the Olympics.  The athletes, the cream of the crop of Greek society, wrote him off as a "barbarian" until he "proved" his Greek ancestry from Argos.  He couldn't prove he was a Greek (despite his Greek name) by being a Macedonian but by pointing to a descent from a Greek city-state.  When Herodotus could have taken this time to "demonstrate" that Macedonians were Greeks, instead he tries to "demonstrate" to his skeptical readers, that the Macedonian kings were Greeks by descent

According to Alexander, Amyntas was the "Greek ruler of Macedonia".  The question becomes, Why does Alexander I (referring to his father) make that distinction?

Careful.  It is never wise to try to define something from two different people of two different eras, especially when the first reference is by its nature quite general.  If we take it by itself, it can very easily mean that Alexander I who was a "Greek, by descent" wishes that the land of his ancestors not come under Persian domination. 

In the second reference, Alexander is simply declaring his personal leadership over the Hellenic League, in the same way that Sparta had leadership of the Peloponnesian League, under the expression "Sparta and her allies".  And the Macedonians?  Alexander represents the Macedonians, since we already know that Macedonian kings took official responsibility to all things involving their kingdom. 

As late as Isocrates (who some love to quote to prove that the Macedonians were Greeks) Macedonia was outside of Hellas (Isocrates, To Philip 5.108)

The Ptolemies ruled Egypt almost 300 years.  The Seleucids ruled Syria almost as long.  In more ancient times we have rulers baring Indo-Aryan names ruling a Hurrian population for almost 300 years.  Even the Greeks saw the rulers of some of their major Bronze Age cities as of foreign origin. 

Based on the examples cited, it is quite possible.

But of course the opposite could have happened.  Greek culture had deep roots in time, while the culture of Macedonia shifted from time to time.  To the south of Macedonia we have Greek Thessaly, to the east we have a Macedonian Aegean shore with Greek colonies.  To the northeast, we have Chalcidice with more Greek colonies.  Greek civilization was the measure for all European cultures.  As mentioned, Macedonia experienced shifts in culture.  The earlier ones were decisively not Greek.  Greek culture does not take root until about 650 BC, supplanting a culture of Illyrian origin. 

It was never learned "so quickly".  Until the 4th century BC, the Greek epigraphy was sparse.  Therefore, taking the beginning of the 4th century BC as an end, we note that the earliest Greek colonies in Macedonia were established by the middle of the 8th century.  In about a century, Hellenic culture was established.  Therefore between the two extremes there was a period of at least 350 years before Greek seems to have predominated in Macedonia.  This is not "quickly".

In this intervening time we have the narrative evidence that barbarians bore Greek names (beginning of the 5th century BC) and that Greeks lived in the Macedonian kingdom (middle of the 5th century BC). 

We note that the reference in Livy is dated to 200 BC.  This can be viewed two ways.  That the "men" in question were the envoys which spoke the same language, or that the "men" were the natives.  If the second one is the true, then we can say that Greek was the predominant language for at least 200 years, since the beginning of the 4th century BC.

We note that by 198 BC the Greeks wanted the Macedonians out of the "whole of Greece" after the Romans broke their power over the Greeks.  Apparently the Macedonians were considered outside of Greece, just as in the time of Isocrates.

I'll respond to the rest of your narrative sometime tomorrow.

I can't really respond to your examples because they are completely incomprehensible  Spartakus, I suggest that you use English letters in italics to show that these are Greek words.  I have some general ideas as to how to respond, but without the specific understanding, I don't want to guess at it.  I would rather respond with an informed understanding.

"Thraco-Illyric"?  This is not a current linguistic classification.  We speak of Illyrian, Daco-Moesian, and Thracian, as well as a "Central Balkanic" group of which the only language documented is Phrygian.  Current studies of Illyrian point to it being a "centum" language, along with Phrygian, while Thracian displays behavior consistent with "satem" languages.  The best that can be said therefore, is that Macedonian is not Illyrian, but that doesn't exclude it from the other 2 (or three) Balkan language families. 

Again, Thraco-Illyric is not a valid language family.  Of the three (or four) Balkanic language families, one is documented to have dominated Macedonia, namely Phrygian.  As Herodotus states, the Brygians held sway over Macedonia until they migrated to Anatolia where they became the Phrygians.  Of all IE languages, Phrygian displays along with Indo-Iranian and Armenian, the most similarities with Greek, but unlike them, is considered a centum language. 

We actually have some archaeological information to validate the Brygian domination.  The culture, known as the Brygian Culture expanded from the historical home of the Brygians to dominate Macedonia between about 1150 to 800 BC.  One of its major centers was Vergina (ancient Aegae) and near there was a place named Gardens of Midas.  Therefore long before the Argeadae established their capital there, Aegae was Brygian.  Because the evidence of the Balkanic languages is woefully sparse, it is as yet premature to at least classify Macedonian with "Central Balkanic". 

Phrygian, like Illyrian, Thracian, Daco-Moesian, and Macedonian, displays the shift from IE bh to b, unlike all the Greek dialects which show the shift from IE bh to ph. 

I will deal with these points once you convert the Greek of these and the others I've pointed out to English.

I never stated that the Macedonians were Hellenized with the introduce of Attic "during the 5th century".  What I've stated is that Hellenization began by the middle of the 7th century by a change in culture and which could have taken place from any direction.  From Euboia, we have colonies on the Aegean coast of Macedonia.  In the south, culture was coming from Aeolic Thessaly.  From the direction of the Pindus, Greeks and Epeirotians were introducing Northwest Greek. 

We do know that in the 4th century BC a dialect of Northwest Greek had reached Pella.  We know that Northwest Greek was the dialect of the Aetolians, Acarnanians, Phocians, and Locrians.  We know that a Northwest Greek dialect was spoken in Epirus. We know that the Tymphaei and the Orestae of eastern Macedonia were considered Epeirotian tribes.  It is thus possible that Greek or Epeirotian migrations brought Northwest Greek into eastern Macedonia, and perhaps that "linguistic legacy" as well.  This is obviously an hypothesis, but that "linguistic legacy" may not have been "old" but like other things which will be discussed, may have been borrowed from a Northwest Greek legacy.

Spartake, i plirofories pou parihes sti sizitisi ine anektimites ke simantikes. I wish you had replied to a post of mine like a month ago where I was looking for information about the Macedonian words Hesychius recorded. Unfortunately, that topic was "locked". According to Sharrukin's reasoning, the Macedonians were not Hellenes because of the anachronistic historic sources of antiquity which have come down to us.

I can find and paste tens of fragments of ancient Greek texts that contradict those ones he has mentioned. On the lingual basis, he probably ignores the fact that Thucydides mentions for instance that Athenians used Messenians in order to set an ambush against the Lacedaemonians. The only reason they did that was because they did not want to raise any suspicions during the night raid regarding the accent of the warriors that would approach the Lacedaemonian guards.

Both Messenians and Spartans spoke the Dorian dialect, that's why they used them instead of some Athenian "commandos" who would be betrayed by their own Attic accent. However, that's unimportant for people like Sharrukin. He will likely come to the conclusion that Spartans or Athenians were also not of Hellenic descent.

On the customs' basis, I must remind some people of the reason that the Lacedaemonians did not march in order to help Athenians at the battle of Marathon in 490 BC. Their own Dorian celebration of the Carneia was their first priority and according to that it wasn't a good omen to campaign before or during that celebration. Another "brilliant" element that can lead us to conclude that people of Dorian stock were not Hellenes.

Sharrukin, since you seem to possess a good knowledge of ancient Hellenic history (although you misinterpret it), what is the etymology of names like Alexandros, Archelaos, Philippos, Parmenion, Thessalonike, Cleitos, Amyntas, Demetrios, Perseus, Attalos etc according to your sources? And please don't come back with the answer that Macedonians tried to imitate Greeks in terms of onomatology because globalization was not so much in fashion back then.

Spartake, se sinhero gia alli mia fora epidi fenete oti meletas endelehos tis piges ke tis martiries pou diasothikan shetika me tin arhea Makedonia alla ke dioti fantazome oti asholise genika me tin grammatia ton progonon mas.

Oreos re adelfe!

Okay, you two.  Cut it out with the non-English postings.

Please read Point 8 here:  http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1338&PN=1 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1338& ;PN=1

I reserve the right to judge what is "excessive".

Thucydides Book 2.80.5-7 - We note that the barbarian contingents of Cnemus's army were under the leadership of some commanders and kings baring Greek names. 

This must be from the older version of CAH.  The modern version says

"The ancient language of Macedonia poses a notorious problem.  No inscription is known which may be written in it, and the supposed remnants of its vocabulary are too scanty to be the basis of any useful reconstruction of its sound-system or other significant featues."

"The names of Macedonians mentioned in fifth- and fourth-century sources are almost all either certainly or possibly Greek, but this is not significant, since member of one people often borrow names from another when they regard it as culturally superior.  No Greek author provides a detailed statement about the idiom which the Macedones spoke."

"Since the material is so sparse and unsatisfactory, the conclusion to be expected from comparative linguistic study is that the evidence does not  indicate convincingly wherether Macedonian was a dialect of Greek or a distinct language.  Hammond has come to this conclusion....."

"To summarize, the proper conclusion about Macedonian is still non-liquet.  The evidence does not indicate convincingly that is was a dialect of Greek rather than a separate Indo-European language.  If the latter, it might have shared some particular features with Greek as, for instance, Greek shared the change of IE *s to h with Iranian languages.  ...........  When Alexander's conquests extended their influence their principal language was koine Greek."

I guess we can keep bouncing this one back. From Cambridge Illustrated History:

"Before the recent spectacular archaeological discoveries at Verghina and elsewhere in Macedonia, the extent of Philip's Greekness and the genuineness of his commitment to the fostering and expansion of Hellenism were seriously in doubt.  But whatever his or his son's true motivation was, there is no doubt as to the outcome of Alexander's conquering achievements. In the third century and later, Greek was being spoken as far east as Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Greek religion and culture had penetrated the Indian subcontinent." 

Hard to believe this spread from non-Greek speakers. Incidentally, it is laughable to declare, as the CAH does about Macedonian that 'No inscription is known which may be written in it'. In fact, hundreds of inscripions of Macedonian have been unearthed all over Macedonia, and yes, in Greek. Yet, in complete denial of the obvious, we are told that the world conquering Macedonians could not be bothered to leave one inscription in their 'native' language behind. Not in any of the far flung countries which they conquered, not in any of the cities they founded, egad, not even in the heart of their kingdom! As King Phillip B said:

'Skafin skafin legontas'. Lets call a spade a spade. The Macedonians were Greeks.

Now, in his revised history of Alexander the Great published to coincide with the movie release, Professor Fox has this to say of Macedon:

"He was still in a world of Greek gods and sacrifices, of Greek plays and Greek language, though the natives might speak Greek with a northern accent which hardened 'ch' into 'g', 'th' into 'd' and pronounced King Philip as 'Bilip'.

Your right, Thucydides is quite clear that he believes that the ruling house of Macedon was of Hellenic origin, and that's all.  However, in his descriptions of the various Greek states, he does mention if they were "in Hellas", "Hellenes", or "Hellenic".  He never uses these words to describe either Macedonia or the Macedonians.  Not only that, but in his description of early Hellenic history, Macedonia is completely absent from it.  He mentions the migrations of the various Greek tribes, but not once does he mention any such Greek migration either into or out of Macedonia.

We cannot subscribe to Thucydides any motives on why he did or didn't mention this or that. As most of Thucydides account of early Greek history takes place prior to the legendary founding of the Macedonian kingdom it is not suprising to see that the Macedonians are omitted. As for the rest, there are other Greeks not mentioned, or very sparingly in contrast to the main antagonists, the Athenians and the Spartans. It is enough to consider that when he does mention the Macedonians, they are Greek.

What does "domiciled" mean in the Greek?  It means "to live in", "to reside in", "to dwell in", "to inhabit".   These Greeks lived in Macedonia, and therefore were subject to the Macedonian king just as much as the Macedonians.  There is nothing here to suggest that they were "temporary" inhabitants.  If you look up this Greek word in other passages in Thucydides you'll find it used for permanent inhabitants, such as the Greeks of Sicily, which had been there for generations.

Domiciled is indeed to 'dwell in'. I do not at all imply that they were 'temporary' inhabitants. It is not correct to say that all the towns or cities of Macedon were 'Macedonian' as they were not all secured until the end of Philip II's reign. There were often Greeks and Greek cities that were at any given time under the personal control of the Argeads or not (In fact even other 'Macedonian' peoples such as the Lyncestians and Orestids). What I am implying is that these Greeks may, or may not, have been under the direct control of Perdikkas, hence not 'his' subjects, as Perdikkas 'own' Macedonians were.

"I've already addressed this issue above, but to reiterate:  We note three groups.  "Infantry" which are "Hellenic"; "cavalry" which are "Macedonian" and "Chalcidian"; and a "crowd" which are "barbarian".  If the Macedonians were Greek, then he would have described the "cavalry" as "Hellenic", also, but he does not.  It therefore still matches the statement above which makes the Macedonians distinguished from Greeks.  The "cavalry" was a mixed group.

And I've already addressed this as well, but to elaborate. We note more than 'three' groups:

"Brasidas and Perdiccas started on a second joint expedition into Lyncus against Arrhabaeus; the latter with the forces of his Macedonian subjects, and a corps of heavy infantry composed of Hellenes domiciled in the country; the former with  Peloponnesians whom he still had with him and the Chalcidians, Acanthians, and the rest in such force as they were able. In all there were about three thousand Hellenic heavy infantry, accompanied by all the Macedonian cavalry with the Chalcidians, near one thousand strong, besides an immense crowd of barbarians."

First we see "Hellenes". Next we see a differentiation between "Peloponnesians" and "Chalcidians" and "Acanthians". Perhaps we are dealing with multiple ethnic groups? Yet, we see the "Hellenes" all lumped together as "infantry" and the "Macedonians" as "cavalry". The "Chalcidians" not being infantry must have been "cavalry". The only distinguishing factor now is that the "Macedonians" belonged to Perdikkas as his "own" personal subjects, as befits the nature of a kingship, while the other "Hellenes" did not.


Please read the thread for the quote provided, and my comments.

I did and still don't see anything. 

 

But of course they did needed to, otherwise they wouldn't have been "recognized" as such by Greeks.  The text is quite clear on that!!!

But the Greeks didn't need to 'recognize' them as such if it wasn't true. That is perfectly clear! The point remains. Herodotus recognized them as Greeks. The Greek Olympic judges recognized them as Greeks. The Argeads themselves recognized themselves as Greeks!
 

"But what you are missing was that the Greeks, his readers did not affirm it, otherwise Herodotus wouldn't have to "demonstrate" it.  His readers were obviously familiar with Macedonia and Macedonians.  Herodotus is just one person, who had to "demonstrate" his point to many.  It becomes quite clear that the Greeks were of more than one opinion regarding the Macedonian royal house as late as Demosthenes."

I would say to you that we cannot say what his readers 'affirmed' or did not 'affirm' unless we possessed some kind of ancient critique on Herodotus. Fortunately we do! Plutarch wrote a scathing review called 'On the Malice of Herodotus'. In it Plutarch has much to say about the 'falsehoods' of Herodotus, mostly to stand up for his fellow Boetians (Thebans) who he feels were unjustly maligned by Herodotus. He proceeds to attempt to dismantle Herodotu's history piece by piece to show Herodotus 'lies'. Yet, nowhere does he contradict Herodotus assertions regarding the Macedonians. Yet here would be a glorious opportunity to show how Herodotus 'lies' with such an obvious proof, but he does not. Yet, why would he? The Macedonians were obviously Greek.  


"So then, we are agreed that the majority of the evidence mostly begins in the 4th century BC.  I've already explained that the Greeks knew that barbarians bore Greek names, and that Greeks "lived" in Macedonia.  Hellenic culture does not begin until after 650 BC despite the fact that we have Greek colonies already there, since a century before.  Therefore, between the beginning of Hellenic culture to the time when Greek seems to have become the majority language, 4th century BC, we have 250 years.  This is long enough for a people to become Hellenized, both in name and in language, just like the Epeirotians.  Thus far nobody has commented on the cultural evidence."
 

The majority sure, but not exclusively. Yet, we should also agree that there has been NO evidence of a supposed 'Macedonian' language, whether 4th century or not. And no, you have not explained how or that barbarians bore Greek names. I will not dispute that 'Greeks lived' in Macedonia, but only to contrast them against the Macedonian kings own Greek (Macedonian) subjects. Yet who 'Hellenized' the Macedonians? Their language was not at Attic form as one would expect from the predominantly Athenian colonies. How do a few colonies surrounded by masses of indegenous inhabitants overwhelm there language, culture, and customs? How did Greek prevail against Illyrian or Thracian, especially when the Greeks were on the mere outskirts of Macedon and by no means a dominant force in the country, especially with the inroads the Illyrians had made? Why would the Macedonians voluntarily 'lose' their language and culture? Recent excavations show that they were by no means primitive. The Romans also absorbed Greek culture, with most of their elite eventually being bilingual. They transplated Greek Gods, Greek literature, Greek architecture, Greek this and Greek that yet they never lost their native Latin, nor their "Romaness". The 'Hellenization' argument just does not cut it.

As for the Epirotes, I will not get into them now, but by no means will I consent that they too were 'Hellenized'. 
 

"Crossland's study excludes 2/3rds of those words as either being borrowings from Attic, false forms, words either of Greek or other IE origin, or not etymologically Greek.  Of the remaining Greek words, he categorizes them as borrowings from West Greek, including military terms and manufactured objects."

Well, I guess I'll have to go with Kapetanopoulos, Kalleris, Maison and other scholars that say that the words are primarily Greek. I will also go with Plutarch who makes it clear:

"The month 'Bysios' as many think, is the month of growth (physios); for it begins the spring and during it many plants spring up and come into bloom. But this is not the truth of the matter, for Delphians do not use b in place of ph (as Macedonians do who say 'Bilip' and 'balacros' and 'Beronice'), but in place of p; thus they naturally say 'broceed' for 'proceed' and 'bainful' for 'painful'. Accordingly 'Bysios, is 'Pysios', the month of oracular inquiry, in which men ask quesions and obtain responses from the god."

The Greek Quesions, Moralia IV

Macedonians spoke Greek.

"We note that in first instance it is Philip that is doing all the talking.  It is he who is claiming that he is Hellenic and it was he who was the overlord over them.  We don't know the Greek point of view until later when the Macedonian power was otherthrown."

Who else but Philip would do the talking? He is the Macedonian king after all. He is never referred to as Greek, but not Macedonian, nor Macedonian, but not Greek, because they are not exclusive. Polybius again:

"The 38th book contains the completion of the disaster of the Hellenes. For though both the whole of Hellas and her several parts had often met with mischance, yet to none of her former defeats can we more fittingly apply, the name of disaster with all it signifies than to the events of my own time. In the time I am speaking of a comon misfortune befell the Peloponnesians, the Boiotians, the Phokians, the Euboians, the Lokrians, some of the cities on the Ionians Gulf, and finally the Macedonians."

38.8

"Regarding the Spartans, we are not talking about the same thing.  The reference in Polybius is quite specific:  They wanted the Macedonians "entirely" out of Greece.  The reference in Thucydides is rather indefinite, but fortunately Thucydides also records the Spartans as saying, "For if we, Athens and Sparta, stand together, you can be sure that the rest of Hellas, in its inferior position, will show us every possible mark of honour" (Book 4.20.4)  We also note contexts, and trends, not isolated statements."

"Greece" depended on the politics of who was talking. Fortunately Polybius lets Philip explain it perfectly:

"In any case, he continued, 'what is this Greece which you demand that I should evacuate, and how do you define Greece? Certainly most of the Aetolians themselves are not Greeks! "(18.5)

To the Aetolians Macedon was out of Greece and to the Macedonians the Aetolians weren't Greek. Politics and rhetoric.

"This was said by an Acarnanian ambassador whose country's "safety" depended on Macedonian "valour".  There was a time when Macedonia was not part of Greece, but when the Macedonians subjugated Hellas, the kings of Macedonia styled themselves "king of Macedonia and the rest of Hellas".  This was the Macedonian point of view and thus those states which depended on the Macedonians followed suit.  But when their power was broken, we have a Greek point-of-view which reverts back to a Macedonia "entirely out of Hellas".

If security were the primary concern the Acarnanian ambassador could surely have secured his "safety" by abandoning the 'foreign' Macedonians and accepting the equally 'foreign' Romans. This is not the case as this is a polemic to resist the foreign Roman invador. The Macedonians were always Greeks, what changed under their dominion was the other Greeks having to submit to a kingdom. The sources are replete with the 'tyrants' of Macedon and the successor kingdoms. This is what caused any hostility, other than the normal Greek vs. Greek kind.

"Common sense" as you define it is different then "historical reality" as we observe.  It should be "common sense" to find that Assyrian should have spread throughout the Middle East and become the lingua franca of the Middle East, as its empire expanded in all directions and had staying power, but that did not happen.  The same thing with Persian, to a far greater extent, yet it did not occur, either.  Instead, the language that actually expanded during their empires was Aramaic.   It must be noted that the dialect of Greek that expanded in the wake of the Macedonian conquest was koine Greek (which obviously did not originate in Macedonia). "

"Hisorical reality" is also different than unsubstanitated "speculation". Now, did the Assyrians and Persians themselves adopt Aramaic? Did they become "Aramaicized"?  Did Sargon and Cyrus both found 'Aramaic' cities? What about Aramaic inscriptions all out of Mesopotamia and Persis? Did they have Greek works translated into 'Aramaic' for their libraries? How about their coins? Did they claim desent from Aramaic heroes? Perhaps David or Moses? The Macedonians surely did all these things with Greek, and to put a spin on it, perhaps, just perhaps, Koine did originate in Macedon...

The quote is talking about Philip and Alexanders' "Greekness" and "Hellenism", not about language.  I have no doubt that Philip and Alexander were Hellenized, and thus, this is no issue.  We talking about language, but this quote doesn't even address the issue.  If by "Greekness" the authors considers them Greek, this still circumvents the issue that we were addressing.  This quote says nothing about language, only about two people.  The bounce back went flat.

Of the hundreds of inscriptions discovered, just about all of them are in the form of epithets giving names, and not enough to determine language.  Only the Pella Curse Tablet gives us enough information to show that the language was Greek but also to determine that it was written in a Northwest Greek dialect.

All this only tells me, is that Alexander's culture was for the most part Hellenistic.  As for language, he simply goes too far.  Nothing suggests that the shifts he talks about point to "Greek with a northern accent".  The Greek thus far uncovered rather points to a western dialect without such shifts.  Can you show that the language of the Pella Curse Tablet demostrates at least the shift of Greek ph to b?

Nothing needs to be said about the "kingdom", but about the "land".  You do know the difference, yes?  The "kingdom" was only a part of the "land".  There was a time when even the whole of the Makedones themselves weren't under one kingdom.   Irregardless as to whether or not the kingdom was founded in a more recent time, the Makedones were already there from an earlier period, yes?  Thucydides describes tribal migrations, as well as states.  If Macedonia was part of his conception of Greece, wouldn't he also describe Greek tribes or tribal migrations there?  Some people like to describe Greek origins in Macedonia, yet Thucydides is completely absent about any migrations involving Macedonia.  Macedonia was not part of early Greek history, and therefore not part of Greece.

Nevertheless, we can plot what was "Hellas", prior to the Peloponnesian War, from Thessaly, through Boeotia to the Peloponnese (Book 1.2.3) which obviously included from Acarnania to the Locrians (Book 1.5.3), and obviously, Athens (Book 1.12.3).  Whatever wasn't mentioned obviously were situated in its midst. 

You realized that just because he "mentions" the Macedonians, doesn't make them Greek, right?  He also mentions, Thracians, Iberians, Carthaginians, Persians, etc.   And again, the appellations, "Hellas", "Hellenes", and "Hellenic", are never applied to Macedonians. 

Thank you for your clarification.  For particulars, the Orestians weren't considered a "Macedonian" tribe, unless you want believe that Thucydides considered them "barbarian" (Book 2.80.5).  Hecateus called them a Molossian tribe, and Strabo called them an Epeirotian tribe.  There were other parts of Macedonia not under direct Argead control, to be sure.  Thucydides describes these other Macedonians as "allies" and "dependents".  But, if they were dependent allies, in that one sence, they were "subject" to him, except, of course, Lyncestis/Lyncus.  While I cannot say if by "country" Thucydides meant the "kingdom" or the "land", the "Greeks" weren't nevertheless Macedonians, otherwise Thucydides would have mentioned that they were "other Greeks", "other Macedonians" or names one or more of the Macedonian tribes.

Umm, no.  When the combined forces are described, first we see "Hellenic heavy infantry", then "Macedonian cavalry with the Chalcidians", and then "immense crowd of barbarians".  There's nothing here not to suggest that Perdikkas's Greeks, as befits their style of warfare and placed with the other Greek heavy infantry, for the sake of order. 

You must had seen my post before I re-edited it.  It should be there now.

No, the point is that the Greeks didn't recognize them as such, at that time.  Whatever the truth of the matter regarding the Argead house, Herodotus was still arguing the point 60 years after the event, and so therefore, it was not widely believed by his readers.

So what if Plutarch judges Herodotus?  Plutarch had his motives.  Irrelevant.  Lying is not even an issue.  Herodotus believed what he believed, because this is what they told him.  What I'm saying is that the truthfulness of his assertion was not believed by everyone.   Nowhere else does Herodotus had to "prove" that a person or family were "Greek" except Alexander and his family.  The only reason, is that Alexander came from a place which the Greeks considered "barbarian".   There is no sense trying to get around this.

In inscriptions no.  However that still leaves those "Macedonian" words taken from Greek works.  Fully a third of them have no Greek etymology, another third are merely glosses or borrowings from Attic or possibly from other IE etymology, while the last third are from West Greek.   Therefore we cannot exclude "Macedonian" as another language.  Bactria has not given us any inscriptions before the Hellenistic period, but then they first occur, they are in Greek.  The earliest Greek inscription was found, not in Greece, but in Italy, to about 775 BC, in Latium, more than 200 years before the first Latin inscription!!!  Argument, therefore by inscriptional evidence is by its very nature poor proof for the identity of the natives.  All they can show is that Macedonia was Hellenized.

Either you completely ignored the arguments or you simply missed them.  The issue is addressed in at least my last two or three postings.

Athens was only one factor in the Hellenization of the Macedonians.  By the time the Athenians took over those coastal Greek colonies in Macedonia in the fifth century, Hellenization was already underway for at least 200 years.  At this time the evidence of the Greek language was very scanty.  Hellenization apparently began with imported Greek culture and then with Greeks making their home in Macedonia.  Greek culture had deep roots in the south, and Greek civilization was the standard in Europe, while the nature of culture in Macedonia had shifted twice in 500 years before Hellenization began.  All European cultures of the time in contact with the Greeks received a level of Hellenization.  Macedonia being the immediate neighbor of Thessaly from the south received direct Hellenization.  By the fourth century we have a dialect of Northwest Greek being spoken at Pella.  The implication is that another direction of Hellenization was occurring from the southwest from areas either in western Greece (i.e. Aetolia, Acarnania, Ambracia) or southern Epirus, which was heavily Hellenized. 

By the time the Illyrians and Thracians were either driven out or pacified, the Macedonians were Hellenized to the extent their their subsequent conquests guaranteed to survival of Greek in the north. 

No, but as I've stated earlier, Macedonia experienced shifts of culture.  This is observable.   Apparently the attitude of culture amongst the peoples of Macedonia was not a strong one, like the attitude of culture amongst the Greeks.  These peoples saw something that attracted them to Greek culture and so they adopted their customs and names.  There is no evidence of war, only of the transformation of culture.  As stated earlier in the thread, the predominant culture before Hellenization in Macedonia was Illyrian culture.  Apparently those peoples oppressed by the Illyrians saw in Greek culture a form of liberation, since they knew no other culture except Illyrian, Thracian, and Greek.  The Thracian cultural component of the Macedonians never really went away, and in 4th century tombs of the nobility, there is still a Thracian influence. 

You can't really use this arguement.  The rate of Hellenization was never the same amongst the peoples the Greeks came in contact with.  The Greeks were in contact with western Anatolia since the Bronze Age, and yet Hellenization in the interior did not occurr until the 4th century BC, due to the fact that like Greece, Anatolia had a deep-rooted culture and a literate civilization older then Greece.  Irregardless of whether or not the coast was heavily Hellenized, the rest of western Asia Minor remained Luwian for the longest time.

And I can give you other examples of ph to b but this word is a proper name, therefore it can fall under the category of a borrowing.  So what if I know someone named Peter, that doesn't make him a Greek.  The name (a borrowing) is meaningless in English, but has a meaning in Greek.  And another thing, what about the other months?  One resembles a Spartan month, while another resembles a Cretan month.  This looks like eclectic borrowing to me.

Macedonians were Hellenized.

Hmmm.   It's very late.   I'll respond to the rest of your post tomorrow

'Language'? First, from the Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2003 Revised:

"The problem of the nature and origin of the Macedonian language is still disputed by modern scholars, but does not seem to have been raised among the ancients. We have a rare adverb ‘makedovisti’ (important passages in Plutarch, Alex.51 and Eum.14), but the meaning of this form is ambiguous. The adverb cannot tell us whether Plutarch had in mind a language different from Greek (cf. ‘foivikisti’, 'in Phoenician'), or a dialect (cf. ‘megaristi’, 'in Megarian'), or a way of speaking (cf. ‘attikisti’).

We have some 'Macedonian' glosses, particularly in Hesychius' lexicon, but they are mostly disputed and some were corrupted in the transmission. Thus ‘abroutes’, 'eyebrows' probably must be read as ‘abrouFes’ (with 't' which renders a digamma). If so, it is a Greek dialect; yet others (e.g. A.Meillet) see the dental as authentic and think that the word belongs to an Indo-European language different from Greek.

After more than a century we recognise among linguists two schools of thought. Those who reject the Greek affiliation of Macedonian prefer to treat it as an Indo-European language of the Balkans, located geographically and linguistically between Illyrian in the west and Thracian in the east. Some, like G.Bonfante (1987), look towards Illyrian; others, like I.I.Russu ( towards ‘Thraco-Phrygian’ (at the cost, sometimes, of unwarranted segmentations such as that of ‘Alexavdros’ into ‘+ale-‘ and ‘+xavd’).

Those who favour a purely Greek nature of Macedonian as a northern Greek dialect are numerous and include early scholars like A.Fick (1874) and O.Hoffmann (1906). The Greek scholars, like G.Hatzidakis (1897, etc.) and above all J.Kalleris (1964 and 1976), have turned this assumption into a real dogma, with at times nationalistic overtones. This should not prevent us, however, from inclining towards this view.

For a long while Macedonian onomastics, which we know relatively well thanks to history, literary authors, and epigraphy, has played a considerable role in the discussion. In our view the Greek character of most names is obvious and it is difficult to think of a Hellenization due to wholesale borrowing. ‘Ptolemaios’ is attested as early as Homer, ‘Ale3avdros’ occurs next to Mycenaean feminine a-re-ka-sa-da-ra- ('Alexandra'), ‘Laagos’, then ‘Lagos’, matches the Cyprian 'Lawagos', etc. The small minority of names which do not look Greek, like ‘Arridaios’ or ‘Sabattaras’, may be due to a substratum or adstatum influences (as elsewhere in Greece).

Macedonian may then be seen as a Greek dialect, characterised by its marginal position and by local pronunciations (like ‘Berevika’ for ‘Ferevika’, etc.).

Yet in contrast with earlier views which made of it an Aeolic dialect (O.Hoffmann compared Thessalian) we must by now think of a link with North-West Greek (Locrian, Aetolian, Phocidian, Epirote). This view is supported by the recent discovery at Pella of a curse tablet (4th cent. BC) which may well be the first 'Macedonian' text attested (provisional publication by E.Voutyras; cf. the Bulletin Epigraphique in Rev.Et.Grec.1994, no.413); the text includes an adverb ‘opoka’ which is not Thessalian.

We must wait for new discoveries, but we may tentatively conclude that Macedonian is a dialect related to North-West Greek."

From Cambridge Ancient Histories:

"The evidence for the language of the Macedonians has been reviewed and discussed by Kalleris and Hammond, Griffith, and many others, all contending that it was a dialect of Greek. The increasing volume of surviving public and private inscriptions makes it quite clear that there was no written language but Greek. There may be room for argument over spoken forms, or at least over local survivals of earlier occupancy, but it is hard to imagine what kind of authority might sustain that. There is no evidence for a different "Macedonian" language that cannot be as easily explained in terms of dialect or accent."

Malcolm Errington, "A History of Macedonia" , University of California Press, 1990

"That the Macedonians and their kings did in fact speak a dialect of Greek and bore Greek names
may be regarded nowadays as certain."

Thomas Martin, ‘Ancient Greece–From Prehistoric to Hellenic Times,Yale University Press, 1996

The 'hundreds' of inscriptions are in Greek. Really, it is quite conslusive. Blind faith in mysterious and unsuprisingly elusive crypto languages is to say the least, unfounded. Northwest Greek is a Greek dialect, and theories of some sort of 'northern lingua franca' are quite far stretched, as the scholars above have noted.

Not that I espouse this, but did it ever occur to you that the Macedonians may have had a spoken Greek dialect (North-West/Aeolic/Dorian) but used the most common written form? In other words, they used the most available written format without excluding them speaking their own hellenic tongue. I suppose it is as plausible, if not more, than mysterious uncovered 'languages'. That being said, perhaps you could post the Pella Curse Tablet so we can observe 'shifts'.

The 'land' was not part of the Macedonian kingdom at the time, hence it was not mentioned. And no, the Makedones were 'not there' from an 'earlier period'. It is quite clear that the Macedonians emigrated from the Pindus to Macedon at a later time then the events described. These extracts tie in with the uncontested tradition of the founding of the Macedon kingdom:

M.Justinus' epitome of Pompeius Trogus' Universal History:

Macedonia was formerly called Emathia,... Caranus also came to Emathia with a large band of Greeks, being instructed by an oracle to seek a home in Macedonia.

The Suda, entry on 'Karanos', legendary founder of the Argead dynasty:

"One of the Heraclids, he gathered an army from Greece and went into Macedonia, which at that time was an obscure place. He ruled there and handed down the rule so that it proceeded in succession all the way down to Philip."

Yet, when Thucydides does mention the Macedonians, there is no doubt that they are presented as Greeks. He confirms Herodotus assertion that the Macedonian royal house was Argead and there is no evidence to conclude that the Macedonian commoners were not.

Really? You don't say. As I thought I made clear, when he does actually take the time to mention the Macedonians he describes them as 'Argeads' and along with the other Greeks distinguishes them from the barbarians. Although I see you do continue to challenge his passage on Hellenes, Macedonians, and Chalcidians, I see that  passage as a complete confirmation.

Yet Diodorus (16.93) says that Orestis was Macedonian, and Pausanias (the murder of Philip), an Orestid, is always referred to as Macedonian. Yet, I won't split hairs about this. Thucydides also makes it clear that at times these 'dependants' and 'allies' were oft to revolt from the king and they too can also be ascertained to not be subjects in the proper sense of the Macedonian king. Thucydides merely gives the local tribes names when referring to them. Nothing more and nothing less.

Umm, no. As I have already stated, 'Thucydides places the 'Macedonian' and 'Chalcidian' cavalry 'besides the immense crowd of barbarians'. It seems perfectly clear that if Thucydides wanted to he would have said 'the Macedonians and other barbarians'. He does not. He simply relates the order of battle and is not trying to emphasize ethnicity. That being said, it might occur to you that when referring to Macedonians he is describing a particular regional Hellenic group and when describing other Hellenes he can not list them seperately. In other words, 'Spartans and the Greeks', 'Athenians and the Greeks' not 'Spartans and Boetians, Locrians, Phokians, Athenians, Elians, etc. etc. etc. From a purely narrative view, this explains much.

No, the point is that Herodotus makes plainly clear that the Greeks (at least the Olympic judges) and the Macedonians, "as they themselves claim" were Greeks and recognized as such. Or else, no Olympics, or no point bringing it up. I will not deny that many Greeks may have thought that the Archaically and Homeric Macedonians were semi-civilized, but they were Greek.

So, it means that Plutarch passed up a perfect opportunity to prove Herodotus was a 'liar'. Especially if he, Plutarch himself and other Greeks, knew that the Macedonians were not Greeks. So, to believe you, we must assume that Herodotus, in times of Athenian ascendancy, and as commonly believed well travelled, just upped and believed what a 'barbarian' told him? That he was convinced because he was 'told' so? Especially in light of the fact that Alexander tried to get the Athenians to surrender to the Persians? On top of it, the Macedonians were accepted by other Greeks as Greeks in the Olympic Games as related by Herodotus? There is no point in trying to get around this.

However, as per my earlier post, and Dr. Maison's excerpt at the top of this reply show, those 'Macedonian' words could very well be Greek and are disputed. Combined with the lack of any inscriptional evidence, onomastics, numastics, and toponyms, it is entirely impossible to support any seperate 'Macedonian' language. Bactria has given us Greek inscriptions because the Macedonians were Macedonian speakers dialectically, and by the time of Alexander, koine speakers. It is apparent that the inscriptions are Greek as this is what the Macedonians spoke and spread.  As for the Latium analogy, we all know that Greeks settled in Italy. We also have had no lack of supply of Latin inscriptions in complete opposition to 'Macedonian'.

I cannot search all the posts to find this. I did ask you politely to provide your argument. If not, I have not seen it.

"Hellenization" was under way from the moment the Macedonians entered the land and pushed out Phrygians, Illyrians, and Thracians. As history tells us, this was done in force with other Greeks from the south (traditionally Argos). Thessalian influence has not been detected in sufficient quantity to imply that the Thessalians 'hellenized' the Macedonians. Rather than look at unsubstantiated theories of wholesale cultural surrender at such a level, it is obvious that the Macedonians had a form of archaic Greek, with influences from her neighbors in the border regions. Combined with an ever expanding Macedonian state absorbing more and more native Hellenic speakers and some barbarians, is sufficient to explain any dialectical differences.

Wow. That speaks of massive levels of hellenization. I am curious, was it ordered online or just shipped north?

There is no evidence of 'shifts of culture'. The only culture in full evidence from Macedonian inception is Greek. Any remnants of Illyrian or Thracian influences are leftovers from years before when they held the land that the Macedonian Greeks pushed them out of. The recent excavations in Macedon have shown many affinities of early Macedonian tombs with Mycenaean ones.

Which further supports the argument that the Macedonians could not be so fully hellenized as you would like us to believe. Neither Illyrians, Thracians, Romans, Luwians, Hebrew, Egyptian, etc...experienced the necessary miraculous dose of hellenization that so completely enveloped the Macedonians.

Yet, balacros (instead of phalacros) is not a 'proper name' (bald-headed) and the Macedonians changed the ph to b while the Delphians changed it to p. You showing me other examples of this is meaningless as Plutarch says as much and it further confirms the range of Greek dialectical differences from Delphian to Macedonian. Furthermore, Thracians, Illyrians, Romans, Jews, are all shown to have native names, while Macedonians are all shown to have almost exclusively Greek names. Eclectic borrowing? They are Greek months with similarities with other Greek months yet with enough diversity to suggest native forms, all in Greek.

Macedonians were, are, and always will be Greek.

From the rest of your earlier message:

Didn’t he not say "I and the other Greeks"? I thought you quoted this passage to prove that he was Hellenic. My point was to show that since he is doing the talking, he is only relating HIS point of view.

Polybius again: "The 38th book contains the completion of the disaster of the Hellenes. For though both the whole of Hellas and her several parts had often met with mischance, yet to none of her former defeats can we more fittingly apply, the name of disaster with all it signifies than to the events of my own time. In the time I am speaking of a comon misfortune befell the Peloponnesians, the Boiotians, the Phokians, the Euboians, the Lokrians, some of the cities on the Ionians Gulf, and finally the Macedonians." 38.8

You spliced together the first part of 38.3 with the second part of 38.5 without regard to context. In the first part of 38.5 it says

"Accordingly after a short time they [the Thebans] obtained assistance, and once more inhabited their country in security. For the compassion of FOREIGNERS is no small benefit to those who are unjustly dispossessed, since we often see that, with the change of feeling among the many, Fortune also changes; and even the conquerors themselves repent, and make good the disasters of those who have fallen under undeserved misfortunes."

 

"Regarding the Spartans, we are not talking about the same thing. The reference in Polybius is quite specific: They wanted the Macedonians "entirely" out of Greece. The reference in Thucydides is rather indefinite, but fortunately Thucydides also records the Spartans as saying, "For if we, Athens and Sparta, stand together, you can be sure that the rest of Hellas, in its inferior position, will show us every possible mark of honour" (Book 4.20.4) We also note contexts, and trends, not isolated statements." "Greece" depended on the politics of who was talking.

Or, who was telling the truth.

Fortunately Polybius lets Philip explain it perfectly/quote] "In any case, he continued, 'what is this Greece which you demand that I should evacuate, and how do you define Greece? Certainly most of the Aetolians themselves are not Greeks! "(18.5) To the Aetolians Macedon was out of Greece and to the Macedonians the Aetolians weren't Greek. Politics and rhetoric.

Not entirely politics and rhetoric. To the Macedonian point of view can be added Thucydides who considered the Amphilochians, barbarians. But that’s besides the point. The point, was that Philip understood what was meant by the Aetolian demand. He demanded a definition of Greece, which he knew did not include Macedonia. He doesn’t defend Macedonia as a part of Greece, otherwise he would have protested that to evacuate Greece meant to evacuate Macedonia. Instead he attacks the Aetolians.

As for this thing about "politics and rhetoric", I need to point out two sources which are pro-Macedonian. One is Isocrates and the other is Aristotle. Everyone knows about Isocrates’s plea to Philip, as a Greek, to be the leader of the Greeks against the barbarians. However in To Philip, (5.105-108) Isocrates writes:

"But to proceed with the rest of my discourse, I believe that both your own father -

and the founder of your kingdom, - ² and also the progenitor of your race - ³ --

were it lawful for http://www.allempires.com/forum/vor?type=phrase&alts=0&group=typecat&lookup=Heracles&collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman - Heracles and possible for the others to appear as your

counsellors--would advise the very things which I have urged. [106] I draw

my inference from their actions while they lived. For your father, in dealing with those states which I am urging you to cultivate, kept on friendly terms - ⁴

with them all. And the founder of your empire, although he aspired higher than did his fellow citizens - ⁵ and set his heart on a king's power, was not minded to

 take the same road as others who set out to attain a like ambition. [107] For

 they endeavored to win this honor by engendering factions, disorder, and

bloodshed in their own cities; he, on the other hand, held entirely aloof

from Hellenic territory, and set his heart upon occupying the throne of

http://www.allempires.com/forum/vor?type=phrase&alts=0&group=typecat&lookup=Macedon&collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman - Macedon . For he knew full well that the http://www.allempires.com/forum/vor?type=phrase&alts=0&group=typecat&lookup=Hellenes&collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman - Hellenes were not accustomed to

submit to the rule of one man, while the other races were incapable of

ordering their lives without the control of some such power. 

[108] And so it came about, owing to his unique insight in this regard, that his kingship has proved to be quite set apart from that of the generality of kings: for, because he alone among the http://www.allempires.com/forum/vor?type=phrase&alts=0&group=typecat&lookup=Hellenes&collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman -

did not claim the right to rule over a people of kindred race, he alone

was able to escape the perils incident to one-man power. For history

discovers to us the fact that those among the http://www.allempires.com/forum/vor?type=phrase&alts=0&group=typecat&lookup=Hellenes&collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman - Hellenes who have managed to

 acquire such authority have not only been destroyed themselves but have

been blotted, root and branch, from the face of the earth; - ¹ while he, on the

contrary, lived a long and happy life and left his seed in possession of the

same honors which he himself had enjoyed."

Isocrates, considered Philip, a Greek, but considered Macedonia outside of Hellas, and the people that he ruled, not Greeks. Isocrates commended the "founder of [his] kingdom" (Perdiccas I) as not ruling over Greeks which were "of kindred race" but ruled over "other races".

Aristotle, whose father served on the Macedonian court, and who himself was the tutor of Alexander writes:

"Hence even though with most peoples most of the legal ordinances have been laid down virtually at random, nevertheless if there are places where the laws aim at one definite object, that object is in all cases power, as in http://www.allempires.com/forum/vor?type=phrase&alts=0&group=typecat&lookup=Sparta&collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman -

and http://www.allempires.com/forum/vor?type=phrase&alts=0&group=typecat&lookup=Crete&collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman - Crete both the system of education and the mass of the laws are framed

in the main with a view to war; and also among all the non-Hellenic

nations that are strong enough to expand at the expense of others, military

strength has been held in honor, for example, among the http://www.allempires.com/forum/vor?type=phrase&alts=0&group=typecat&lookup=Scythians&collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman - Scythians ,

http://www.allempires.com/forum/vor?type=phrase&alts=0&group=typecat&lookup=Persians&collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman - Persians , http://www.allempires.com/forum/vor?type=phrase&alts=0&group=typecat&lookup=Thracians&collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman - Thracians and http://www.allempires.com/forum/vor?type=phrase&alts=0&group=typecat&lookup=Celts&collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman - Celts . Indeed among some peoples there are even

 certain laws stimulating military valor; for instance at http://www.allempires.com/forum/vor?type=phrase&alts=0&group=typecat&lookup=Carthage&collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman - Carthage , we are told,

warriors receive the decoration of armlets of the same number as the

campaigns on which they have served; and at one time there was also a law in

  http://www.allempires.com/forum/vor?type=phrase&alts=0&group=typecat&lookup=Macedonia&collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman - Macedonia that a man who had never killed an enemy must wear his halter

instead of a belt. Among http://www.allempires.com/forum/vor?type=phrase&alts=0&group=typecat&lookup=Scythian&collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman - Scythian tribes at a certain festival a cup was

carried round from which a man that had not killed an enemy was not allowed

 to drink. Among the http://www.allempires.com/forum/vor?type=phrase&alts=0&group=typecat&lookup=Iberians&collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman - Iberians , a warlike race, they fix small spits - ¹ [20] in the

 earth round a man's grave corresponding in number to the enemies he has

killed. So with other races there are many other practices of a similar

kind, some established by law and others by custom. (Politics, 7.1324b)"

 

From even pro-Macedonian sources, Macedonia was "non-Hellenic" and and its people among "other races" and so was outside of Greece.

I’ve taken some time to look over Polybius. Several things are made clear to me. The term "barbarian" is applied to other peoples accept Greeks and Macedonians. When Perseus was captured by the Romans, the Romans communicated to the Macedonians "in Greek". Some Greeks (either out of political expediency or by a shift of definition) considered them "kindred". I now draw the conclusion that the "Aetolians, Acarnanians, Macedonians, - men of the same tongue" meant what you claim. Therefore, sometime between Isocrates/Aristotle and Polybius, (i.e. just before the Macedonian conquest and the Roman conquest), the Hellenistic culture of the Macedonians was accepted as Greek by some Greeks. Authors such as Strabo (early 1^st century AD) and Arrian (later 1^st century AD)

still thought otherwise.

"This was said by an Acarnanian ambassador whose country's "safety" depended on Macedonian "valour". There was a time when Macedonia was not part of Greece, but when the Macedonians subjugated Hellas, the kings of Macedonia styled themselves "king of Macedonia and the rest of Hellas". This was the Macedonian point of view and thus those states which depended on the Macedonians followed suit. But when their power was broken, we have a Greek point-of-view which reverts back to a Macedonia "entirely out of Hellas". If security were the primary concern the Acarnanian ambassador could surely have secured his "safety" by abandoning the 'foreign' Macedonians and accepting the equally 'foreign' Romans. This is not the case as this is a polemic to resist the foreign Roman invador. The Macedonians were always Greeks, what changed under their dominion was the other Greeks having to submit to a kingdom. The sources are replete with the 'tyrants' of Macedon and the successor kingdoms. This is what caused any hostility, other than the normal Greek vs. Greek kind.

Security was the first thing the Acarnanian ambassador addresses. He needed Macedonian security not just against the Romans but also against the Aetolians. The Acarnanians are obviously guilty of putting a spin on Greek history, for the fact that the Greeks had always wanted to breakaway from the Macedonians, but they gloss over that fact. They didn’t even want to mention their part in the resistence to the Macedonians in the earlier description of their own history.

"Common sense" as you define it is different then "historical reality" as we observe. It should be "common sense" to find that Assyrian should have spread throughout the Middle East and become the lingua franca of the Middle East, as its empire expanded in all directions and had staying power, but that did not happen. The same thing with Persian, to a far greater extent, yet it did not occur, either. Instead, the language that actually expanded during their empires was Aramaic. It must be noted that the dialect of Greek that expanded in the wake of the Macedonian conquest was koine Greek (which obviously did not originate in Macedonia). " "Hisorical reality" is also different than unsubstanitated "speculation". Now, did the Assyrians and Persians themselves adopt Aramaic?

Assyrians, yes; Persians, mostly to communicate with subject peoples. Yet ironically, Aramaic saw its greatest expansion during the Persian period to the furthest parts of the empire.

Did they become "Aramaicized"?

Assyrians, yes; Persians, to a small degree. The Persians adopted Elamite and Assyro-Babylonian culture. However, the Persian satraps in the west were to some degree Aramaicizing, and Iran remained relatively clean. The Assyrians and the Babylonians absorbed the full impact of the Aramaean migrations and thus served as a buffer between the initial Aramaic west and the Iranian east. The only true place of initial Aramaic penetration was northern Media, but intense Assyrian activity (before they Aramaicized) insured that Aramaization there did not make a real impact..

Did Sargon and Cyrus both found 'Aramaic' cities?

No, but neither did Alexander find truly ‘Greek’ cities. Sure, he founded a whole bunch of cities baring his name, but you know that he was trying to create an international culture to the consternation of his generals and soldiers. Most of those "Alexandrias" remained native in culture. It was the successors who purposely founded "Hellenic" cities, and Hellenized a few of the "Alexandrias", especially, Alexandria in Egypt..

What about Aramaic inscriptions all out of Mesopotamia and Persis?

Aramaic had been spoken in Mesopotamia and Syria since about 1000 BC. Aramaic expanded into Anatolia, which was, linguistically Anatolian, initially by about 900 BC, but not widespread until the Persian Period. In the east, although no inscriptions have been found except on coinage, to date, we know that Aramaic script had reach India during the Persian Period, for such scripts as Kharoshti was derived from Aramaic script. We have inscriptions written in east Iranic languages such as Sogdian, which were written using Aramaic script. The Indians had two names for the Greeks, Yonas which came from Persian Yauna, and Yavanas, which came from Aramaic, Yavan, which ultimately came from the older version of the name of the Ionians, the Iavones, hence we know that the Indians had contact with Aramaic.

Did they have Greek works translated into 'Aramaic' for their libraries?

The Assyrians did, but, real Persian archives have eluded discovery, so the answer is ‘we don’t know’.

How about their coins?

The Assyrians did not use coinage. The Persian coinage did have Aramaic inscriptions.

Did they claim desent from Aramaic heroes? Perhaps David or Moses?

No, but that means very little. For the fact that Aramaization did spread under formerly non-Aramaic empires which claimed non-Aramaic ancestors, shows that the Hellenization that did occur in Macedonia, did not need kings who claimed descent from Greek heroes, to spread Hellenistic culture to the east.

The Macedonians surely did all these things with Greek, and to put a spin on it, perhaps, just perhaps, Koine did originate in Macedon...

No, it was the Greek colonization that did that. The Macedonians were more concerned with administration and military than with wholesale Hellenization, exept the Ptolemies. Although the evidence does show that Koine was developed by the 4^rd century BC, it could not have originated in Macedon, because it was derived from Attic-Ionian dialect. The evidence of dialect in Macedonia was of the Northwest Greek variety. Since you have already noted that Attic was not native to Macedonia, then obviously Koine did not originate there, either. The best that can be said is that the Macedonians opened the flood gates for the Koine to spread out into the larger world, and that they adopted it to communicate with that larger world.

Hello again people. I would really like someone post all the Macedonian words Hesychius recorded so that I can have a clear image of it. I am not thinking of buying a copy of his work yet. Especially my two fellow countrymen, Nikas and Spartakus, would be helpful since I can see they know much about linguistics.

I personally believe that some "strange" words used in Macedonia have come down to us just because Hesychius considered them to be foreign, that's why he included them in the dictionary. Otherwise, the nation of the Argeades spoke an Aeolian language of the Hellenic family or a Northwest dialect as Nikas pointed out according to the Pella tablet. After all, many Thracian words have been recorded by Hesychius as well.

A typical example is the Macedonian word danos which means death (thanatos in standard Greek). The replacement of th- by d- is normal since they are both dental consonants and it happened a lot. Sas efharisto pedia gia to hrono ke tin ipomoni sas!

You glossed over the fact that despite this author’s conclusion, he does say "The problem of the nature and origin of the Macedonian language is still disputed by modern scholars.". His conclusion therefore must be taken as just one of many.

So, we have old opinions, by Kalleris, Hammond, Griffith, and many others. The newer opinions in the newer version of the Cambridge Ancient Histories: "Since the material is so sparse and unsatisfactory, the conclusion to be expected from comparative linguistic study is that the evidence does not indicate convincingly whether Macedonian was a dialect of Greek or a distinct language. Hammond has come to this conclusion....". "Kalleris examines only words which are stated to be Macedonian in ancient sources - 153 in all - and considers that well over three-quartes of them are to be explained as Greek. This conclusion is far too sanguine."

He is at least correct in locating the Macedonians first in the mountains. Their appearance on the coast was of later date. However when they did get to the coast, they encountered Greek colonies which took on the appearance of the polis. Now, if it is true that "royal Argives" made their appearance in Macedonia, later, then why didn’t they create poleis, since they supposedly came from a polis? The polis was known to them by the end of the 8^th century when they encountered the Greeks on the coast. The Greeks at that time saw them as "kindred" but not Greeks.

And so we can conclude that by one modern conclusion, that because they "spoke a dialect of Greek", "they were essentially Greek". The ancient Greek witness was otherwise. Molossians and Orestians, although they spoke Greek, were "barbarian" (Thucydides, Strabo), and the Lyncestae were either Illyrian or Epirote (Strabo 7.7.8). It’s the ancient testimony that’s important, not modern perspectives. Speaking Greek from outside of what was recognized as Hellas did not make one Greek, just as having a Greek name did not make one Greek. I can at least agree that eventually, they "spoke a dialect of Greek".

Again, there is no dispute that they "spoke Greek". The question is whether Greek was the original language of the Macedonians. This author does not address the issue.

So they were Greek because:

1. Their language was Greek, to judge by their personal names.

I had already dealt with the ancient sources which demonstrate that barbarians bore Greek names.

2. Their language was Greek, to judge by the names of months of the calendar.

1 had already shown that this was the result of borrowing. They got one month name from the Spartans, and another one from Cretans, and yet another one from the Delphians. Therefore their calendar is artificial, and therefore borrowed from various sources.

3. Their language was Greek, because Macedonian ambassadors could appear before the Athenian assembly without interpreters.

So the ambassadors learned how to speak Attic or Koine. So what? Ambassadors from all over the world learn English when they are given a post in the U.S. This means nothing.

Now, since you want to try to overwhelm me by trying to use some authors to prove that your idea is the majority opinion, instead of giving you a list of authors reflecting my point of view, I refer you to the following urls for such a list of authors and their quotes:

http://www.macedon.org/anmacs/scholars.htm - http://www.macedon.org/anmacs/scholars.htm

http://www.macedon.org/anmacs/quotable_quotes.htm - http://www.macedon.org/anmacs/quotable_quotes.htm

Yes, I know. That particular site is quite ‘anti-Greek’ and I don’t recommend it for its propaganda. However it does quote from scholarly sources, just to show that those subscribing to my position are not a marginal group.

Linguists do draw a distinction between epithets which bare Greek names from inscriptions which give evidence of language. The majority of the inscriptions only bare names and titles. The evidence of language on inscriptions is at best, sparse. Most of those scholars you used don’t even address the issue of the possibility of a different language. What they are focused on is the Hellenism of Philip and Alexander.

Yes, it has occurred to me. We in fact do note that some literary forms of Greek are actually a mixture of various dialects. We actually don’t have examples of written Acarnanian or Aetolian, but since they geographically fall between Locrian, Epirotian Greek, and Elisian, it is assumed that they spoke a Northwest Greek dialect. Hence, "Macedonian" (be it a dialect or a language) may simply be a non-literary language, like Illyrian and Thracian. We still don’t even know the nature of Paeonian, although its name bears a very good Greek etymology (not to mention the names of Paeonian rulers). However, because the majority of ancient testimony is quite consistent in describing the Macedonians as barbarians, I cannot ignore that evidence. These barbarians adopted Greek culture and language and Greek amongst all ancient Balkanic languages is the only literary language. It would be arrogant presumption (for me) to assume that it was Greek when there are other possibilities in such a large region as the Balkans.

Now, has it ever occurred to you that perhaps, just perhaps, "Macedonian" may be a language, which although may show characteristics of a Greek dialect, also shows enough characteristics of other Balkan languages to warrant being considered a different language? Consider that English and German are from the same linguistic subfamily, just as, say, ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. We note that most subfamilies of IE have more than one member in its family. Now, we note that there are a myriad of dialects and subdialects of ancient Greek., some, barely intelligible than others. Italian and Romanian, although different languages, are barely intelligible, but in the same subfamily, fit into this situation. The same goes for present-day Turkic languages. Maybe Greek wasn’t the only language in its family. Maybe, as some suspect, that Macedonian was perhaps separate enough from Greek to be warranted as another language, but close enough to be in the same subfamily. As Koine was superceding most dialects of Greek, maybe it was also superceding Macedonian?

This is in contradiction to the traditions described by Herodotus, our earliest source. He describes the "Argives" as having entered "Macedonia" from "Illyria" and into the service of a local king in Upper Macedonia. When the local king chased them out, they moved "to another part of Macedonia" to found their kingdom under Perdiccas. Herodotus describes the Macedonians as "neighbors" to the Brygians before their move to Anatolia. This occurred in the mountainous area (Upper Macedonia). We note a Brygian period of dominance from about 1150 to 800 BC. Now we do attest a Macedonian presence in Pieria by the time of Hesiod, about 720 BC, but the ‘kingdom’ is not created until about 650/640 BC (virtually all regnal chronologies agree). The conclusion is that there were already Macedonians in the mountains from an undeterminate date, and that their presence in Lower Macedonia (Emathia and Pieria) was more recent. The "Caranus tradition" is of later date, and contradicts the "Perdiccas tradition", our earliest story.

The key word here is that Thucydides "affirms" Herodotus regarding the royal house but nothing else. Thucydides may have subscribed to Herodotus’s conclusion since he read him. He does put concisely Herodotus’s story quite well, and thus it is very likely that he got the story by directly reading him. If Alexander was judged a barbarian by the cream-of-the-crop of Greek society then it is implied that the Macedonians were certainly considered such. The implication is certainly there. In Thucydides we have Perdiccas’s army comprised of "Greeks" and "Macedonians", and in another place listed among "barbarian contingents" of Cnemus’s combined forces along with Molossians, Chaonians, Thesprotians, etc. but what distinguished the Macedonians in that part of the catalog was their absence. Nowhere are the Macedonians called "Hellenes", "Hellenic", or in "Hellas". Even the Greeks from overseas are called such, like Ionia (1.95.1; 3.32.2; 8.45.4), Siciliotes (6.2.5-6; 6.17.5; 6.18.4), Italiotes (6.90.1), and in Thrace (2.97.3). The epithet is completely absent for Macedonia or Macedonians, except for "Hellenes living in the country". The implication whether you agree or not is that Greeks and Macedonians are not synonymous. Greeks comprised a population in Macedonia, just as they comprised a population in Sicily.

Hehe. You only see what you want to see. It is you who challenges his passage. As for the term "Argeads", it is only used in reference to the royal family, nothing more, nothing less. The word doesn’t even occur in Thucydides, but instead "Temenids from Argos". Now, if you are trying to say that "Argives" are equivalent to Macedonians, or that "Temenids" are equivalent to Macedonians, then you have gone over the top. The bottom line is that the royal family is claimed to have a Greek origin, and nothing else. Trying to equate the royal family with Macedonians goes against all context, and all logic.

The references by Hecataeus and Thucydides are more ancient. By the time of Philip II, who is alluded to in Diodorus, Orestis was completely part of the kingdom, hence, yes, Orestis was now Macedonian, but not ethnically so.

Yes, but at that time, the only revolting tribe were the Lycestians. That left all others as dependent allies, and so, subject to the Macedonian king.

A strawman arguement. We are not talking about an order of battle but of type of military. They are "infantry", "cavalry", and "crowd". It makes perfect sense that if Thucydides says that the "infantry" were Hellenic, he should have said that the "cavalry" were also Hellenic, but he does not. Macedonians and Chalcidians comprised a mixed group. Since we know that the Chalcidians were Hellenic, the Macedonians were not. Now that makes perfect narrative sense.

From a purely narrative view, this doesn’t even exist. It is always ‘Sparta and her allies’, (or simply ‘Peloponnesians’) and ‘Athens and her allies’. And I can cite instances where he describes the contigents of both sides. How about Thucydides (2.80.5; 5.60.3; 7.57 - 7.58.3). So, no, that is utterly false.

The only reason why they were accepted was that they claimed Argive descent, and not just any Argive descent but descent from the Argive royal family. There’s absolutely nothing to suggest that all true Macedonians were of royal Argive descent. Unless you want to unnecessarily strain that passage and claim thus, the sense of "barbarian" is always understood to mean ‘non-Greek’, not ‘semi-civilized Greek’. He was judged a "barbarian" because he came from Macedonia. He was judged a Greek because his ancestors came from Argos. He could not prove he was a Greek by claiming to be a Macedonian. Go figure.

You made no sense whatsoever. Plutarch’s judgment (or lack thereof) is irrelevant. As for Herodotus, he doesn’t provide "proof" as he claimed he would, but instead we get a story and a geneology. And now you stretched that story of the Olympics into something it does not say. The only thing that the story says is that Alexander was accepted because he "proved" his Argive descent. It does not say, that "Macedonians" were accepted because of Argive descent. It only talks about Alexander. Nothing more, nothing less.

What is disputed between Kalleris and Crossland is only a third of those Macedonian words. They both agree that a third have no satisfactory Greek etymology and another third are Greek. There they disagree is a last third of the corpus, where Kalleris considers them Greek, while Crossland sees them as either non-native Greek (and therefore, borrowings), false forms, or having etymologies other than Greek. As for the inscriptions, they are sparse until the 4^th century BC. Just because there are inscriptions doesn’t prove anything other than a Greek influence and a Greek presence, which becomes acute in the 4^th century BC. We already have barbarians baring Greek names, and Hellenes living in Macedonia. This is sufficient to show the Hellenizing influence. What the inscriptions cannot tell us is ethnic identity.

But that is also false. Numismatics do reveal a Thracian presence in northeastern Macedonia. Coin issues of "Mosses", "Dokimus" and "Getas" attest to that, at a time when that region was supposedly part of the Macedonian kingdom. In terms of toponyms, we do have Pieria, Bottiaea, Mygdonia, Almopia, Gardens of Midas, etc. which reflect non-Greek occupation. The names of towns are later in date and thus reflect the shift to Greek. The only towns which attest to the earliest Greek presence are Pydna and Methone.

No, Bactria has given us Greek inscriptions because of Greek colonization. Real Macedonian presence was minuscule, restricted to the satrap and his contingent. The Macedonian satrap eventually revolted creating the Bactrian kingdom, but the Greeks revolted from the Macedonian ruler, and the kingdom became truly Greek. But that’s besides the point. The point was that the evidence of language does not mean that the earlier occupants who did not leave inscriptions spoke the same language as those leaving inscriptions. The Bactrians were East Iranians, and later in the reign of Kanishka, king of the Kushans, which were still using Greek in their inscriptions and coinage, switched from Greek to "Aryan".

The point was that, inscriptionally, Greek was first, despite its presence in a region which was obviously foreign. Like I was saying, inscriptions are a poor ethnic marker.

Okay. The first evidence is Herodotus (Book 5.22). Alexander, despite his Greek name was considered a "barbarian". The athletes were not impressed by this man bearing a Greek name, but were focused on where he came from, and as stated the only reason why he was accepted as a Greek was because he "proved" that he was of Argive descent. Therefore, the Greeks knew of people bearing Greek names which were not Greeks, and that Macedonians fell into that category.

The second evidence is Thucydides (Book 2.80.5) where he lists the barbarian contingents of Cnemus’s army. Almost all the leaders of the barbarian contingents bore Greek names.

Hellenization was only in evidence from about 650 BC. The Macedonians were there from a more ancient period. They are at least attested by Greek sources from about 720 BC. They claim to have been there since the time they were neighbors of the Brygians, that is, prior to about 800 BC. The "Greeks from the south" were late-comers who gained leadership of those Macedonians already in Pieria, when they established Aegae.

You haven’t been listening to what I have been saying. When I said "Thessaly" I didn’t necessarily mean "Thessalians". The Thessalians didn’t have to be the only force to Hellenize the Macedonians, from the south. . Thessaly was also a conduit for Hellenic cultural influence further south. I have already accounted for Hellenic influence from the Aegean coast, Chalcidice, and from the southwest.

Rather than looking at just purely linguistic evidence, there is also archaeological, anthropological, and historical narrative. Archaeologically, we have cultural shift. Social anthropology shows that a small group can be an influence on a larger group and actually assimilate the larger group. Historical narrative shows that a barbarian population has been Hellenized. The linguistic evidence, although "disputed" nevertheless does show the potential of a language other than Greek.

You haven’t been paying attention to what I’ve saying have you. Hellenization was a long process - at least 300 years from the time of initial Hellenization, about 650 BC to about 350 BC when Philip finally drove out and pacified the Illyrians and Thracians.

We call the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age "culture" of Macedonia, "Brygian" because it originated in the area of the ancient Brygians and it spread to the whole of Macedonia. It lasted from about 1150 to 800 BC. This culture ultimately originated in Lusatian Tumulus Culture of central Europe. Prior to this, there is no evidence that Macedonia was Mycenaean. The archaeological evidence shows a land whose assemblages showed origins from other parts of the Balkans as well as from Greece during its Mycenaean period. Mycenaean artifacts discovered showed that they were either imports or imitations. Apparently the sources at your disposal don’t even address the issue of non-Hellenic cultures in the area, and so you are not very well informed. I recommend you read Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 3, part 1; "Ancient Remains in Macedonia", (beginning on page 641) by Hammond, himself. You read it and then come back to discuss it.

No, you just don’t like to believe that such a long-drawn-out "dosage’ could occur. I would point out that the Romans, Luwians, Hebrews, and Egyptians were literate societies. Luwians, Hebrews, and Egyptians, had deep-rooted cultures. Evidence shows the less deep-rooted a culture is, the more Hellenized it becomes. The Illyrians and Thracians, non-literate cultures as they were, received more Hellenic influence then the others.

Really? Maybe it only acts like a Greek dialect when borrowing Greek words, much the same way that Japanese borrows English words but changes English l to r, such as English glass to Japanese gurasu, and English mobile to Japanese mobairu.. We have Macedonian abroutes compared with Greek ophrues, "eyebrows". We can compare the Macedonian word with other IE languages. In Sanskrit we have bhru-, in Avestan, bhruvat-, and in Middle Irish, bruad-. We can thus show how IE bh became Macedonian b, but became ph in Greek. This same pattern can be shown in other Balkanic languages such as Illyrian, Thracian, and Phrygian. So, even, if you can show similarities between Greek words substituting Balkanic b with Greek ph, it only shows normal developments from a wider Balkanic perspective. Phocian (or Delphian), a confirmed Greek dialect, only shows a development from Greek.

Hellenization was occurring prior to the evidence of names as far back as the 7^th century BC. Barbarians with Greek names (early 5^th century BC) and Hellenes living in Macedonia (middle 5^th century BC), and most of the epigraphic evidence of 4^th century date and later, demonstrates that progression. That’s all that’s needed to be said^. Oh, by the way: With certain degrees of Hellenization, even some of those groups you mentioned were adopting Greek names. We have Illyrians named Demetrius and Jews named Aristobulus, Alexander, Alexandra, Antigonus, etc. For Thracians, we have a Phile[tuo] or a Phile[mon],

It suggests borrowings from various Greek sources.

Many factors prove otherwise, and propaganda isn’t going to help you either.

??? What would you prefer? 'I and the other Macedonians and the other Greeks'? Quit grasping at straws. Philip is a self acclaimed Greek and he is the king of Macedon and the Macedonians. Your theory of masses of 'non-Greek' by omission just doesn't hold water:

"General Paulus of Rome surrounded by the ten Commissioners took his official seat surrounded by the whole crowds of Macedonians...Paulus announced in Latin the decisions of the Senate, as well as his own, made by the advice of his council. This announcement was translated inot Greek and repeated by Gnaeus Octavius the Praetor-for he too was present."

Livy,XLV 

Or when Caesar and Pompey battled it out in Macedonia:

"Caesar judged that he must drop everything else and pursue Pompey where he had betaken himself after his flight, so that he should not be able to gather more forces and renew, and he advanced daily as far as he could go with the cavalry and ordered a legion to follow shorter stages. An edict had been published in Pompey's name that all the younger men in the province (Macedonia), both Greeks and Roman citizens, should assemble to take an oath."

Caesar, Civil War 111.102.3

Oh, but wait. By Livy and Caesar's time the entire population of Macedon was 'hellenized' thoroughly...

Right....

Actually, you have no regard to "context". If you did, you would notice that on 38.4 Polybius says:

"Now, the greatest alarm that fortune ever brought upon the Greeks was when Xerxes invaded Europe: for at that time all were exposed to danger though an extremely small number actually suffered disaster. The greatest sufferers were the Athenians: for, with a prudend foresight of what was coming, they abandoned their country with their wives and children. That crisis then caused them damage; for the BARBARIANS took Athens and laid it waste with savage violence."

You see, Polybius says the greatest disaster to fall upon Greece were the Persians, who were "barbarians" and not, let's say Philip or Alexander who actually did conquer Greece, unlike the Persians. You see the Macedonians were indeed 'foreigners' to the Thebans, but they were not "barbarians" to them, if that is what Polybius is intending to mean, which is by no means clearly the case.

I don't recall the Aetolians actually calling the Macedonians 'barbarians'. Would you please find that in Polybius?

Well, the Aetolians are indeed referred to as 'barbarians' elsewhere during this war (Livy). Philip knew quite well indeed what was meant by the Aetolians demand. The Aetolians wanted his garrisons out of the rest of Greece so that they could be the hegemon power. Arguing that Macedonia was a part of Greece would have been irrelevant, everyone knew that Macedon was holding down the other Greeks, and that was the point.  Everyone knew what the war was about, who would be the hegemon in Greece, Aetolians or Macedonians. Unfortunately for them, the Romans took over.

Politics and rhetoric again.

For one who speaks of 'contexts' you certainly don't use it yourself. Isocrates does not speak of the Macedonians as 'other races', and this whole passage actually confirms the legend of the founding of Macedon.  He speaks of ancient times long past. Now unless you think that Perdikkas strolled up to Macedon and announced that he was the new sherriff in town, how do you think Macedon was taken? As per the ancient traditions, the Temenids/Argeads and a large body of Greeks went north to found a kingdom and mixed/led the Pindus Dorians/Macedonians. At the time being related of this event, not Isocrates own time, the natives of Emathia (the name before Macedon) were 'non-kindred' and thus Isocrates finds praise for Perdikkas who went into 'non-Hellenic' lands. No one denies that there were Illyrians, Thracians, and possibly Phrygians there. It was Perdikkas and THE MACEDONIANS who pushed out the non-Greeks and ruled the territory of the non kindred peoples making Macedon a Hellenic land . They expelled, assimilated, and expanded the Hellenic kingdom of Macedon. Thus Perdikkas did not rule over a kindred race (the ARGIVES) but set up shop in Macedon. Isocrates says exactly as much when he goes on to talk about the tyrants of Athens right after and no luck ever befalling any tyrant who rules over his own people.

Not really. As you can see, Aristotle talks about the present warlike non-hellenic nations he is referring to and then lists them. 'Scythians, Persians, Thracians, and Celts'. Were he talking about barbarian WARLIKE peoples, how could he not mention the Macedonians? Yet, the fact that he says "at one time there used to be a law in Macedonia" is an allusion to these un-Greek like practices of the non-Greeks he is comparing to, at a past time when Macedon may have been inhabitated by the barbarians I have already talked about, or a law that was inherited from them. Again, his use of past context clearly contradicts the current illustration of the non-Greeks.

Besides, we know that Aristotle already considered Macedonia a part of Greece:

"Of the rivers in the Greek world, the Achelous flows from Pindus, the Inachus from the same mountain; the Strymon, the Nestus, and the Hebrus all three from Scrombrus; many rivers, too, flow from Rhodope.."

Meteorology, BI.13

The Macedonians were accepted as Greek as far back as Hellanicus, Hesiod, and Herodotus, and as the Argead claim shows, their hellenicity dates back to the earliest times. Strabo and Arrian do NOT think 'otherwise', that is simply untrue.

The Greeks always wanted to 'breakaway' from the Athenians, Spartans, Thebans, or Acarnians for that matter. It is a moot point.

I will get to the rest of your points later...

I INVITE THE ARCHEOLOGISTS AND SCIENTISTS EVEN THE SIMPLE PEOPLE OF ALL OVER THE WORLD TO RESEARCH AND TELL US THE TRUTH ABOUT THE ANCIENT MACEDONIA BY TESTIFYING IT WITH EVIDENCE.PLEASE WE ALL MUST BE TRUETHFUL AND FAIR WITH VERACITY AS MUCH AS WE CAN.PERHAPS THE HEADING OF THIS TOPIC IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE BUT ON THE OTHER HAND THIS TOPIC HAS ALREADY A REACH HISTORY.

While I patiently give all due respect to Nikas to finish his response, I haven't forgotten you Phalanx.

You already admitted that it can be used for a language, like Phoenician, so there’s no point in trying to prove otherwise. The conclusion of the matter is, therefore this: The word makedonisti, of itself, cannot be used to prove either way if it was a Greek dialect or a foreign language. The Greek English Lexicon (Liddel and Scott) is content just to define it as to mean "in Macedonian".

We have three descriptions. First, we have the description of Perdiccas’s forces. Second, we have the description of Brasidas’s forces. Third, we have the description of the combined force. In the description of the combined force, we have "infantry", "cavalry", and "crowd". The infantry is described as "Hellenic", the cavalry is described as "Macedonian" and "Chalcidian", and the "crowd" is described as "barbarian". What part of the text don’t you understand?

The Peloponnesians were part of the "infantry" along with other Hellenes, and so that’s why Thucydides called the entire infantry "Hellenic": The Hellenic Peloponnesians were combined with other Hellenes.

You obviously ignored the FACT that "Hellenes" was already being used for the whole Hellenic population by the 8^th century BC. Hesiod already refers to "the whole race of the Hellenes" in Works and Days, 528, and to all Greece as "Hellas" in his admonition to his brother Perses in Works and Days, 653. Thucydides gives a comprehensive description of virtually all Hellenes, and it did not include Macedonians. All Greek peoples were referred to in his work as "Hellenes", "in Hellas", and "Hellenic", terms NEVER used for Macedonia or Macedonians. "Hellenes" were in Macedonia, but they weren’t Macedonians.

Only for someone who doesn’t understand what they are reading.

Apparently better than you!!!!!

You should have looked even further before you drew your conclusion. As you have already discovered, two of the definitions is "hold" and "possess". What Strabo then does is mention the names of the "barbarian" tribes. In Strabo Book 7 fragment 11, he mentions that Macedonia was "taken and held" by Epeirotes, Illyrians, Bottiaei and Thracians. Among the Epirotes were the Orestae, Pelagones, and Elimiotae (Strabo, Book 9.5.11), and they inhabited Upper Macedonia (Book 7.7.8). Among the Thracians (Book 7, fragment 11), he mentioned the Paeonians, who possessed much of Macedonia at an early time, as well as the Pieres, Edones, Bisaltae, and Mygdones. The Briges, also "Thracian", possessed much of Macedonia (Book 7, fragment 25). Among the Illyrians, an allusion is made to the Lyncestae (Book 7.7.8). The Bottaeans possessed Lower Macedonia (Book 7, fragment 20). These were all ancient peoples, known from earlier Greek sources already in Macedonia, "NATIVES". Among the above, are tribes called "Macedonian" (Thucydides 2.99), namely the Elimiotae, who are called Epeirotes by Strabo, and Lycestae, who are listed among the Illyrians, barbarian tribes.

The Macedonian kingdom didn’t even include most of these tribes. Alexander could not prove he was a Greek by being a Makedone. He "proved" he was a Greek by "demonstrating" his Argive descent. To the Greeks, Macedonians were barbarians.

Why do some people continue to confuse the issues? I was addressing Alexander, NOT the Macedonians.

Neither Herodotus nor Strabo proves your point, nothing more nothing less. Thanks to them we know for a fact that the Greeks knew that Macedonia was a barbarian land, to your obvious discomfort.

Has anybody bothered to mention that Aristotle was admittedly a very extreme racist and would not teach to anyone who was not a Hellene?

If this is so, then why would he teach Alexander unless of course he was a Hellen?