Are you 100% sold on ancient Macedonians not being Greek?

Candour · **Joined:** 28 Mar 2010 05:58 **Posts:** 59

TrueMacedonian wrote:

http://www.maknews.com/forum/macedonian-history/pausianus-description-of-greece-t17426.html

Quote:

I posted this before, and I will post it again. Its a curse tablet from Pella written in Doric Greek. Its significance shows it was written by an ordinary woman, not an elite person.
This is just one of the many peices of evidence. It will be passed off as propaganda of course and a viscous circle will soon engulf this thread. I really dont know what else to say.

This is why topics like this just end up in circles. Your description of the Pella tablet can easily be refuted like Anomaly has shown us. The link above is another way of refuting and you will provide more evidence and we will provide more evidence and thus the circle of futility.

Is it intelligent to be sold 100% one way or the other in light of this? If one is, is it anything beyond nationalistic prejudice that is informing the decision? If the answer is yes, it HAS to argued for. One has to dismiss the counter evidence and give what is believed to be the better explanation for the seeming disparity. Otherwise, it just doesn't make sense to be sold 100% way way or the other on the issue.

Menelaos · **Joined:** 22 Mar 2010 10:26 **Posts:** 493

Candour wrote:

Menelaos wrote:

Candour wrote:

Menelaos wrote:

Just use common sense and go with it. It would also be a good idea to go and visit the sites. Let the artifacts do the talking. To answer your question, I'm sold.

Menelaos do you feel you can account for all evidence to the contrary? E.g. these references to Macedonians being Barbarians, references to Greece and Macedonia being used separately in the same sentence, evidence of wars between Greeks and Macedonians?

And what of the hurdles like the ones that TM and The Anomaly are providing: language and artefacts not necessarily being signs of ethnicity, the changing meaning of labels like 'Greek' and the changing and contested nature of social groups generally, the lack of understanding of certain historians and others in approaching matters of history etc?

Can they all be accounted for in your certainty that the Macedonians of antiquity were Greek?

Candour, each individual can see what they want to see. Educated ppl do not take other ppl's word for it, they investigate and form an opinion based on what they see. We have ppl like Hammond, Borza that have spent their lives on these subjects. They did not ask anybody for guidance. The facts are on the ground, they speak for themselves. For the sake of the question you posed to me, I will say it this way. There is no evidence to show they were not Greek. If you come across any, we'll be here to check it out.

So what you are saying is that someone like Borza, who believes the Macedonians weren't Greek, is basing this on no evidence?

And is there really no evidence? Is reference to Macedonian as a different language to Greek in sources like Quintus Curtius Rufus and Plutarch not evidence? Are Macedonian people like Archelaus and Phillip being referred to as barbarians not evidence? Are wars, antipathy to and subjugation of the Greeks by Macedonians not evidence?

Candour, Pls read up again on what Borza says.
Wars between Greeks in Antiquity, what else is new ?
Dont know what quote you referring to Rufus and Plutarch so I cant comment.
You should see what the Spartans did to other subjugated Greeks.

A Borza quote: Our understanding of the Macedonians' emergence into history is confounded by two events: the establishment of the Macedonians as an identifiable ethnic group, and the foundation of their ruling house. The "highlanders" or "Makedones" of the mountainous regions of western Macedonia are derived from northwest Greek stock; they were akin both to those who at an earlier time may have migrated south to become the historical "Dorians", and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians. That is, we may suggest that northwest Greece provided a pool of Indo-European speakers of Proto-Greek from which were drawn the tribes who later were known by different names as they established their regional identities in separate parts of the country... First, the matter of the Hellenic origins of the Macedonians: Nicholas Hammond's general conclusion (though not the details of his arguments) that the origin of the Macedonians lies in the pool of proto-Greek speakers who migrated out of the Pindus mountains during the Iron Age, is acceptable.

TrueMacedonian · **Joined:** 14 Apr 2005 01:32 **Posts:** 4846

Candour wrote:

TrueMacedonian wrote:

Shall we be slaves to Archelaus, we, being Greeks, to a Barbarian.

TM, does the above quote you listed imply that you are sold that the Macedonians of antiquity were not Greek? Are you certain about it, or at least certain that all the evidence to the contrary can be accounted for so that it is reasonable to believe that they weren't Greek?

Candour the written evidence on the ancient Macedonians suggests that they were a seperate ethnic group in antiquity. But let me ask you something. Was identity solid in antiquity or was it as fluid as it is today?

TrueMacedonian · **Joined:** 14 Apr 2005 01:32 **Posts:** 4846

Menelaos wrote:

Candour wrote:

Menelaos wrote:

Candour wrote:

Menelaos wrote:

Just use common sense and go with it. It would also be a good idea to go and visit the sites. Let the artifacts do the talking. To answer your question, I'm sold.

Menelaos do you feel you can account for all evidence to the contrary? E.g. these references to Macedonians being Barbarians, references to Greece and Macedonia being used separately in the same sentence, evidence of wars between Greeks and Macedonians?

And what of the hurdles like the ones that TM and The Anomaly are providing: language and artefacts not necessarily being signs of ethnicity, the changing meaning of labels like 'Greek' and the changing and contested nature of social groups generally, the lack of understanding of certain historians and others in approaching matters of history etc?

Can they all be accounted for in your certainty that the Macedonians of antiquity were Greek?

Candour, each individual can see what they want to see. Educated ppl do not take other ppl's word for it, they investigate and form an opinion based on what they see. We have ppl like Hammond, Borza that have spent their lives on these subjects. They did not ask anybody for guidance. The facts are on the ground, they speak for themselves. For the sake of the question you posed to me, I will say it this way. There is no evidence to show they were not Greek. If you come across any, we'll be here to check it out.

So what you are saying is that someone like Borza, who believes the Macedonians weren't Greek, is basing this on no evidence?

And is there really no evidence? Is reference to Macedonian as a different language to Greek in sources like Quintus Curtius Rufus and Plutarch not evidence? Are Macedonian people like Archelaus and Phillip being referred to as barbarians not evidence? Are wars, antipathy to and subjugation of the Greeks by Macedonians not evidence?

Candour, Pls read up again on what Borza says.
Wars between Greeks in Antiquity, what else is new ?
Dont know what quote you referring to Rufus and Plutarch so I cant comment.
You should see what the Spartans did to other subjugated Greeks.

A Borza quote: Our understanding of the Macedonians' emergence into history is confounded by two events: the establishment of the Macedonians as an identifiable ethnic group, and the foundation of their ruling house. The "highlanders" or "Makedones" of the mountainous regions of western Macedonia are derived from northwest Greek stock; they were akin both to those who at an earlier time may have migrated south to become the historical "Dorians", and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians. That is, we may suggest that northwest Greece provided a pool of Indo-European speakers of Proto-Greek from which were drawn the tribes who later were known by different names as they established their regional identities in separate parts of the country... First, the matter of the Hellenic origins of the Macedonians: Nicholas Hammond's general conclusion (though not the details of his arguments) that the origin of the Macedonians lies in the pool of proto-Greek speakers who migrated out of the Pindus mountains during the Iron Age, is acceptable.

In the shadows of olympus by Eugene Borza page 78

Menelaos · **Joined:** 22 Mar 2010 10:26 **Posts:** 493

Hello TM, where you been ?
Yes, its a good book.

In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon (1990)
Princeton University Press

Only recently have we begun to clarify these muddy waters by revealing the Demosthenean corpus for what it is: oratory designed to sway public opinion and thereby to formulate public policy. That elusive creature, Truth, is everywhere subordinate to Rhetoric; Demosthenes' pronouncements are no more the true history of the period than are the public statements of politicians in any age.
pp. 5-6

There is no doubt that this tradition of a superimposed Greek house was widely believed by the Macedonians[...] There was a persistent, well attested tradition in antiquity that told of a group of Greeks from Argos -descendants of Temenus, kinsman of Heracles- who came to Macedonia and established their rule over the Makedones, unifying them and providing a royal house.
p. 80

There is no reason to deny the Macedonians' own traditions about their early kings and the migration of the Macedones[..] The basic story as provided by Herodotus and Thucydides, minus the interpolation of the Temenid connections, undoubtedly reflects the Macedonians' own traditions about their early history.
p. 84

Their daughter, who would be the half-sister of Alexander the Great and, later the wife of Cassander, was appropriately named Thessalonike, to commemorate Philip's victory in Thessaly. In 315 Cassander founded at or near the site of ancient Therme the great city that still bears her name.
p.220

Here we have seen that their early history is still largely an open question. They may have had Greek origins: Whatever process produced the Greek-speakers (of that is how one defines "Greek") who lived south of Olympus may have also produced the Makedones who wandered out of the western mountains to establish a home and a kingdom in Pieria.
pp. 277-278

Candour · **Joined:** 28 Mar 2010 05:58 **Posts:** 59

Menelaos wrote:

Candour wrote:

Menelaos wrote:

Candour wrote:

Menelaos wrote:

Just use common sense and go with it. It would also be a good idea to go and visit the sites. Let the artifacts do the talking. To answer your question, I'm sold.

Menelaos do you feel you can account for all evidence to the contrary? E.g. these references to Macedonians being Barbarians, references to Greece and Macedonia being used separately in the same sentence, evidence of wars between Greeks and Macedonians?

And what of the hurdles like the ones that TM and The Anomaly are providing: language and artefacts not necessarily being signs of ethnicity, the changing meaning of labels like 'Greek' and the changing and contested nature of social groups generally, the lack of understanding of certain historians and others in approaching matters of history etc?

Can they all be accounted for in your certainty that the Macedonians of antiquity were Greek?

Candour, each individual can see what they want to see. Educated ppl do not take other ppl's word for it, they investigate and form an opinion based on what they see. We have ppl like Hammond, Borza that have spent their lives on these subjects. They did not ask anybody for guidance. The facts are on the ground, they speak for themselves. For the sake of the question you posed to me, I will say it this way. There is no evidence to show they were not Greek. If you come across any, we'll be here to check it out.

So what you are saying is that someone like Borza, who believes the Macedonians weren't Greek, is basing this on no evidence?

And is there really no evidence? Is reference to Macedonian as a different language to Greek in sources like Quintus Curtius Rufus and Plutarch not evidence? Are Macedonian people like Archelaus and Phillip being referred to as barbarians not evidence? Are wars, antipathy to and subjugation of the Greeks by Macedonians not evidence?

Candour, Pls read up again on what Borza says.
Wars between Greeks in Antiquity, what else is new ?
Dont know what quote you referring to Rufus and Plutarch so I cant comment.
You should see what the Spartans did to other subjugated Greeks.

A Borza quote: Our understanding of the Macedonians' emergence into history is confounded by two events: the establishment of the Macedonians as an identifiable ethnic group, and the foundation of their ruling house. The "highlanders" or "Makedones" of the mountainous regions of western Macedonia are derived from northwest Greek stock; they were akin both to those who at an earlier time may have migrated south to become the historical "Dorians", and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians. That is, we may suggest that northwest Greece provided a pool of Indo-European speakers of Proto-Greek from which were drawn the tribes who later were known by different names as they established their regional identities in separate parts of the country... First, the matter of the Hellenic origins of the Macedonians: Nicholas Hammond's general conclusion (though not the details of his arguments) that the origin of the Macedonians lies in the pool of proto-Greek speakers who migrated out of the Pindus mountains during the Iron Age, is acceptable.

I haven't read Borza's book, so I properly shouldn't even be speaking about it, but just going off these words from the back cover of the book, you can perhaps see where I am coming from:

"In tracing the emergence of the Macedonian kingdom from its origins as a Balkan backwater to a major European and Asian power, Eugene Borza offers to specialists and lay readers alike a revealing account of a relatively unexplored segment of ancient history. He draws from recent archaeological discoveries and an enhanced understanding of historical geography to form a narrative that provides a material-culture setting for political events. Examining the dynamics of Macedonian relations with the Greek city-states, he suggests that the Macedonians, although they gradually incorporated aspects of Greek culture into their own society, maintained a distinct ethnicity as a Balkan people."

I don't suppose there is any contradiction there with what you quoted from Borza though. They might have emerged from a Greek stock, but they also could have developed into a distinct ethnicity.

I'll have to go over Rufus and Plutarch (who I have read) to dig out the references to Macedonian language being different to Greek language at another time. They are there though...

Point taken about the wars amongst Greeks though...

Are you 100% sold on ancient Macedonians not being Greek?

Who is online