I didn’t know if you consider the mythology as a part of the history.This is the reason that I start with Herodotus. So I put and the  Homer and the others known poets.

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

The W is the omega in the Greek alphabete.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Indo-European tribes that descended to Peloponnesus from Pindus and Doris were given the name "Dorians," with their violent descent and settlement known in the Greek and foreign historiography as the "Dorian invasion."

You mention a lot the word “barbarian”. The ancient Greeks(pro Isocrates era) used the word barbarian in order to decsribe people even they belong in theirs race. I think that you are from the people that believe the word barbarian has as only meaning the “foreigner”. The word barbarian in the ancient Greek linguistic has two different derivations. In my opinion Strabo [14,II,28]has gave the correct etymological meaning of the barbarian in the ancient period.

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

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

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

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

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

As I said you in my previous post is very difficult a people ruled from Kings with different race. Thracian, Illyrians, Mollosians, Spartans all known kingdomships societies ruled from men with the same race.

Why Macedonians must be different ?

The exactly dating is something hard to find it.  We have two other datings which do not at first sight accord with any of the previous statements: the chronicle of Eusebios (Chron.icon  II, 74–75 Schoene)  introduces Pheidon, brother of Karanus   at Abr. 1220, that is, 797 BC, while Isidorus of Sevilla (Chronicon 34.) dated him to the time of the first Olympic games in 776 BC.

 

So we have one other dating connection

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

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

 

 

 

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

Finally  I think that some answers(like Helelnodike)  cover me ,so I don’t want to repeat them. Actually agree that the long posts is tediously and usually we guide out of the initial purpose. Like the language of the ancient Macedonians.

 

@Istor the problem of the translations is huge.Like my English grammar

-------------

Istor the Macedonian

The title merely means "Greek judges". You cannot show purpose by simply giving its meaning. Please give ancient documentation for the role of the Hellenodikai. According to the article "hellenodikai" in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, it is defined as "the title of the chief judges at the Olympic Games, the Nemean Games, and the Asclepian Games at Epidaurus. The Olympic hellanodikai were appointed for a single festival from the leading families of Elis: they presided over the games, exercising disciplinary authority over the athletes, and over the banquet which ended the festival. The title was also used for a magistracy in Sparta (Xen. Lac. 13.11)." Nothing is specifically said about proving the Greekness of athletes.

The documentation I have says otherwise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

akritas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Different comparison.

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

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

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

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

I agree that there two hypothesis as about the Macedonian tradition but I can’t reject them because:

-Both written from known ancient Greek writers

-Theirs sources were common.

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

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

-I don’t believe in the arbitrary argument or conclusion of the Macedonian propaganda. There is no where any evidence for that.

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

-------------

You are right Flipper.

@Sharoukin

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

Alexander doesn’t say “ruler of Macedonia”, but “ruler of Macedonians” (do you really have to change Herodotus’ words?). And my question wasn’t about what he said but about the wideness of the word “Μακεδόνων = of Macedonians” he used. Did he include Makednoi in the people ruled by him who called them “Macedonian”? Since you don’t answer, I suppose that you don’t have an answer and thus you accept that the term Macedonians used by Alexander did include Makednoi and thus both words were identical. Alexander said that he was Greek just like any Macedonian, being proud Greek, could say. For what he did and said, he called as Philhellene by Alexandrian writers as honor.

 Thucydides here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Thuc.+2.99 - http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Thuc.+2.99 says that Macedonians expelled Vottiaians, Pieriams, Peonians…. and other tribes around old Macedonia before meeting Greeks. This means that those tribes were placed between Greek settlers and Macedonians.

Are you arguing about hellanodikai’s role? Do you deny that there was a commission in the games to test whether some athletes were Greek? If not, do you deny that this commission was the hellanodikai? If your answer is yes to any of those questions then you don’t deserve my time. Here you may read about “agonothetai”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellanodikai - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellanodikai

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

Plutarch DID separate Macedonian dialect from Egyptian and other languages for he didn’t site Macedonian amongst other languages but he wrote “makedonizein” = Macedonian kind of speech in an accented contradiction: “some of them did those things and in addition they stopped macedonizing”.

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

Do you accept that a Greek tribe settled Macedonia? Do you accept that that tribe was self-called Macedonian? What do you thing about their number? How many were they? Do you accept that that tribe hellenized progressively some peoples around?  Do you accept that that tribe incorporated some other Greek tribes living around (Vottiaians, Orestes, Lyngestes, …)? I talk about before Alexander’s the 1st times.

@menumorut

Come in my forums to talk about those elementary things:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/506558/ - http://www.network54.com/Forum/506558/

Herodotus, book 1, George Rawlingsons translation for during the reign of Deucalion, Phthiotis was the country in which the Hellenes dwelt, but under Dorus, the son of Hellen, they moved to the tract at the base of Ossa and Olympus, which is called Histiaeotis; forced to retire from that region by the Cadmeians, they settled, under the name Macedonians, in the chain of Pindus. Hence they once more removed and came to Dryopis; and from Dryopis having entered the Peloponnese in this way, they became known as Dorians.

If anyone is ofended by my previous posts or they interfear with this topic. I ask the moderators to delite them. Its not an offence to me if something is alredy offending someone else.

Thank You.

Oks forgive me for my Iliteracy but wasnt there two terms.

Hellenic period
Ellenic period

Is there anything simmilar?
Because im not quiet shore... All i know is that one means greek (the actual greek colture) and the otherone was the Base for a Macedonian empire forged by Alexander III... as a way of comunicating and understanding eachother.

Im not quiet shore about the correcness of the namese because i recieved this knowlage in a different language.

???

Since i see that u have great knowlige can u tell me why Alexander I was called Fil Hellen (as u said that means Mi ellen)?

U know "the non-greek"

Since the term Hellenism plays an important part in defining the ancient Macedonians i have this report (its not my works):

Although, the term "Hellenistic" period may still be acceptable as a cultural classification of the time during and after Alexander the Great, the term "Macedonistic" period should, and ought to be, used to cover any other historical references. There is no denying that the period from Alexander the Great until well into the Roman time deals with Macedonian Dynasties, their rule, succession and their eventual interaction, or lack there of with the indigenous local populations throughout the Balkan Peninsula, Asia and Egypt. Here, the term "Hellenistic” can hardly do any justice to historical scholarship since its coverage/domain leaves a huge section of history barely touched. Hellenism, the term Johan Gustaf Droysen gave to this era, is such a narrow cultural belt of history that its usage is not only misleading and inappropriate but it also distorts and minimizes the greatness of the ancient Macedonians. Even though the Greek contribution, from a cultural point of view, may be argued to have occupied a place of pivotal importance in the administrative sector of the empire, the organizational, the military and the structural components of this Macedonian Empire must have been obtained, delivered and maintained strictly from Macedonian resources and for Macedonian interests. The concept of an empire, an esoteric notion for the Greeks, was born with the first few initial successes of Alexander, and its meaning, magnitude, scope and structure grew as the string of victories and the success on the battlefields allowed Alexander to enlarge, coordinate and control huge land areas in Asia and Egypt. For almost 3 centuries after Alexander, it was his successors that carried the symbols and the name of the Macedonian Empire. Thus, the very narrow strip of "Hellenism" that comes, as a residue, attached to the period in question, cannot, in any meaningful way, embrace and encompass the scope and the magnitude of an empire that was built, organized and maintained on the strength and the efficiency of the Macedonian army.

Differences Between The Ancient Macedonians and The Ancient Greeks by J.S. Gandeto