If we look at all the sources throughout ancient texts that hint at ancient Macedonians being ethnically Greek, can they all be realistically refuted?

Is there a better explanation available in all the instances throughout the ancient sources which Greeks use as evidence for ancient Macedonians being Greek?

Please try to be objective about this, and don't rely on ad hominem arguments like 'what does this have to do with you people as modern (and therefore pseudo) Greeks'.

Candour I think that in your country today history has been so politicized that if you state the opposite of what is expected of you it only ushers in a world of pain. Are you 100% sold that you haven't pre-set your opinion to contradict the objective responses you're looking for?

When Thessaly, late in the 5th century BC, was attacked by a Macedonian King, Archelaus, a speech "On Behalf of the Larissaeans" was composed by Thrasymachus contained the sentence;

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

I think I am open-minded enough to be persuaded by reasonable arguments. Not being an expert on ancient history, I feel I am in a good position to ask questions rather than provide answers here.

If I was more well read, perhaps I would have started a thread laying down my evidence for what I believe rather than asking a question of others who have or claim to have knowledge on this issue.

I do assume however, even without getting into the nitty-gritty of the arguments involved, that because historians fall on both sides of this issue, that it is contentious. I am assuming of course that historians on either side of the argument aren't all brainwashed or bought off and there actually is an issue here because rational, well-read people are disagreeing about it. I could come to think the issue isn't contentious, but simply knowing that historians disagree about it, it makes me assume that the answer here isn't obvious.

That's the pre-set opinion I have leading into this inquiry. i am happy to change it later on though, so I'm not reason-unresponsive.

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.

page 38


I have a bridge to sell ya in Brooklyn if you're interested

Archaeology does not tell us what language some ancient people have spoken, unless of course specific artefacts are found that say something along the lines 'this language written here is the language of those and those people'. For example, when the Gothic bible was found no one could know it was Gothic if it was not for the accompanying texts that said it was Gothic. No one knew the clay tablets belonged to the Hittites until they found one which spoke of their language being the language of the tablets. And so on.

My main concern was always the problem of language, experience and imagination when examining and researching history.

Language of course because when reading ancient sources the words that we translate do not always fit into our modern meaning. What is the meaning of the word Greek in the works of ancient authors? Is our modern designation 'ethnically Greek' applicable to the ancient Greeks or Macedonians? What do modern Greeks mean by the word 'ethnically Greek' and what do others? Etc.

Experience because it has many times happened that people here, but also professional scholars, lack experience with situations, events, skill, etc. that are used to understand the ancient world. For example, if I was to argue that ancient Macedonians spoke a language from which modern Macedonian descendant and by this I refute the Slavic Migration Theory, many who would counter argument me do not have adequate knowledge in logistics to understand how such a mass migration would function, or for example who these Slavs would be, since they couldn't be farmers, as I myself being a farmer can understand that for a migration of farmers to succeed or even just to begin requires organization and skill far beyond what Slavs as described in ancient sources or as testified by archaeological findings could manage.

And imagination is crucial since for one to understand the ancient world requires extensive knowledge and then its application in perceiving the world of the ancient Macedonians which was drastically different than that of modern Macedonians and Greeks thus is not correctly identifiable to those who think that they can simply use their common sense to understand the ancient world, like thinking you know early Medieval history of England by watching a documentary on the Anglo-Saxon invasion on BBC.

Anyhow, I do not think that ancient Macedonians were Greek ethnically, although I don't think that other Greeks were Greek ethnically either. But some Macedonians were Greek ethnically, while most other weren't. As for language, I do not think there is sufficient evidence to confirm what the language of the ancient Macedonians were, although I cling to it being of the same language family as Thracian, which by most recent research is most likely Baltoidic.

Hey TM, I finally bought this book for myself. It is better to have it close at hand then to go to the library every time I feel like reading it.

It is a really informative book and Geary doesn't hold back. Here's some more from Geary;

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?

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.

He makes good points about not politicising history for modern day nations. I dont disagree with that but thats not what Candour is asking.

Archeology tells us everything Anomoly. I can site so many sources of self admission to the Greek Ethnos that Macedonians felt at the time but then this thread would get lost really fast with each group posting their quote or source to prove their opinion. As far as Slavs are concerned we can talk about that in the other thread. This is a good topic in itself.

Archaeology tells us little about the language of a certain group. I made that clear in my post. Ethnicity is not the same as language either. Now, you can post your quotes about ancient Macedonians saying they were Greeks, I wouldn't counter back with a single quote however, because that would achieve little to nothing, to me it is only a matter of fact that such quotes exist. Thus, keeping in mind that there are texts which confirm that both the ancient Macedonians were Greeks and were not Greeks, the entire endeavour is thus made irrelevant, i.e. posting quotes to prove either claim is irrelevant. What I instead would do is argue the flawed logic in your interpretation of the quotes and try to deconstruct what the term Greek meant in those quotes in reality. Was it a linguistical, ethnic, cultural or political designation? And so on. As a reminder, in the past I did similar things and I have concluded that in most cases Macedonian referred to them being culturally Greek, of course not in the same common sense modern meaning of cultural, and some may referred to it as linguistical, those who spoke Greek but excluding those who did not, i.e. it is my conviction that Macedonians spoke a different language as natives and Greek as a language of prestige and commerce hence comparable in situation to the Anatolic people whose languages in time became extinct. Keeping that in mind I could ague that in every quote you mention about Macedonians speaking Greek it is only about those Macedonians who spoke Greek and not the others who didn't, hence making that argument invalid unless there would be a quote which would say that all Macedonians spoke Greek as a native language, though I am not familiar with such a quote, and in which case I would then ask what kind of Greek, and if the answer would be Attic then it would mean it was a language learned and not language inherited, and as far as I am aware the majority of inscriptions in Macedonia in Greek are in Attic which proves the point of it being a learned imported language. But returning to my initial point, posting quotes would be an endeavour that is based on false promises. Do not misunderstand me here, what I mean is that posting quotes, as it has been done for a long time here, is a waste of time, as it is a conviction of lesser minds that they prove a point. That would be a shallow interpretation however. To me the discussion of whether ancient Macedonians were Greek or not has more to do with the psychology and philosophy of the modern researchers themselves and how they interpret the ancient material rather than the material itself. And as I said in the beginning and in my previous post, that Archaeology does not give us evidence about the language or ethnicity of some culture unless directly mentioned or specified by itself or by some other evidence, the fact that you disagreed with me fascinates me more than the arguments you would use to prove my statement otherwise.

Again, Archeology tells us substantial amount of information about ethnicity and language. You really are underestimating their line of work, and the ability for Archeologists to filter out the examples you listed above disputing this. Take for example the Romans. We know Rome was influenced by Greek literature, Religion, Culture. We also know the elite Romans spoke Greek as well. We also know they spoke Latin, and had Roman Names for Gods. In Macedonia's case there is NOTHING to support otherwise. With Illyrians and Thracians there is evidence to show their seperatness from Greeks. We even have info on Etruscans for God's sake and again with Macedonians we have NOTHING to show otherwise. I agree with you not to rely on quotes, i have said to see the artifacts on the ground.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pella_curse_tablet

You interpret the Pella curse tablet in the manner that it was written by a woman who was a Macedonian and the language of the tablet is Doric Greek which is the language of the Macedonians. In the same manner I can interpret it as follows: the woman was from some part of Greek world where Doric was spoken, maybe she just lived in Macedonia on her own or maybe she lived there with her family who were also not Macedonian like her but were there as a merchants, or maybe the tablet just found its way in Macedonia but originates elsewhere, or the woman was a Macedonian but learned Doric Greek from someone else. Thus, the language of the tablet is not ancient Macedonian. All interpretations are equally valid. The fact that people have concluded from this simple piece of tablet that the language of Pella must have been Doric Greek shows more that they are interpreting the facts to match the theory, that Macedonian was a Greek dialect. I on the other hand claim Macedonian was not Greek hence I am interpreting the facts to fit my theory and Lo!, it fits too.

Too be even a meagre historian one must be an excellent philosopher.

Ppl are not basing everything on the Pella tablet alone, Its just one example.
Anyway, you are right and that goes back to what I said earlier. Individuals will see what they want to see and it can go like this forever. I prefer to see the sky as " red ", can you counterclaim that its not ? Bottom line is that we dont have anything else to prove otherwise. Today this is what we have, until we find something different the burden of proof lies with the naysayers.

macedonian-history/pausianus-description-of-greece-t17426.html



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.

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?

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.