Talk:Ancient Macedonians/Archive 1

Cleanup

Totally neutral reshuffling of chronologically mixed-up section, did not add or removed anything, is just a better style- better reading now. 82.23.5.243 (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I realy think you should clean up all this.It is etno identification most important in relation to (greek)Hellenic descendantcy?In ancient times have clear distinction between Hellen and Macedon and their descendancy.Let not mix this with current identity of 18-19 century.It is clear that Ancient Macedonians have cultural stratum.Macedonians has been higher rulling class and their funeral process is telling to us that they has been something special and out of place.Let say openly and loudly that in middle of Ancient Macedonia we have Kurgan .No way connected with Hellenic customs,and no way connected with Macedonian substratum formed from domicile population mostly from Pelasgian stock. I am reading only bullshit on this pages.In all necropolas we can see rulling kurgans with rich findings with customs not connected with mayority of the other burrials which are poor and Illyrian in origin which is proof that Illyrian are Pelasgian or old Europe population in Gimbutas.So who and from where are this Macedonians.Contrary to legendary historical sourcess we have at least some information for Halshtat cultural infusion on the Balcan peninsula throught Lusatian culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.76.139 (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-Hellenic words?

find me a ancient macedonian word with a non-hellenic etymology. I challenge everyone to bring it on the discussion group.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.162.45 (talk • contribs).

...ooooh....a challenge....sort of like arm-wrestling. very macho. Actually, there apparently are a number of Macedonian words that don't have clear "hellenic etymologies", but these can be viewed as loanwords from another people, so your challenge is irrelevant, and would not prove anything pro or con. good luck finding another earth-shattering challenge. In the meanwhile, try to use this talk page to discuss changes to the article's content.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.228.53.144 (talk • contribs).

noone can find anything non-Hellenic about Macedonians. DefendEurope (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Researched on the net. Conclusion: Ancient macedonians had, at least, the Greek culture including language, religion, way of life.--89.210.248.253 (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonians were an Ancient Greek Tribe. period.

This article has been vandalized. You delete ancient sources. You block ancient and modern historical and linguistic knowledge. This is disgusting. Ancient Macedonians were Hellenes like Molossians, Chaonians, Thesprotians, Spartans, Athenians etc. are you guys allergic to truth? for tribes like Molossians and Chaonians it's ok to put "Molossians were an Ancient Greek tribe", but for the Macedonians it is not? there are hundreds upon hundreds of ancient writings of Macedonians calling themselves Greek, Greeks calling Macedonians Greek, Persians and other foreigners calling the macedonians Greek. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Macedonia do you have proof and sources against that? If you disagree with this fact that Ancient Macedonians considered themselves Greeks(or Hellenes), bring your arguments and sources or silence forever. If there is not doubt about whether ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe why is this article not like any other ancient Greek tribe article? it should be like this: "The Ancient Macedonians (Greek: Μακεδόνες, Makedónes) were an ancient Greek tribe who inhabited..." if there is no evidence against it except propaganda, why not let the people know the truth? that is the way that it should be "Greek tribe". Ask any Historian. look at modern and ancient Historians: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Macedonia see it for yourself , crosscheck it and tell the whole truth. DefendEurope (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is disgusting this is suppossed to be an encyclopedia.Respect facts and sources,if you disagree with something show some facts and arguments and let us discuss Wrcrack (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Another example of FYROM double standards

How typical from our northern neigbours. When you refer to yourselves, you demand that everybody calls you Macedonian because that's what you call yourselves. But when you refer to the Ancient Macedonians, who SELF IDENTIFIED as Greeks, we have to sit and listen to what you (or some propaganda sources of yours) say about them. There is a Greek saying (from the Greek shadow puppet theater of Karagiozis) that goes: "Mine is mine and yours is mine". --    Avg    02:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ancient Macedonans that self identified as Greeks?? Where did you get that idea from? I have never heard it. --B. Jankuloski 23:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, B. Jankuloski, here are a few quotes from famous ancient Macedonians which (unfortunately, for obvious reasons) they don't teach you:

Alexander I of Macedon, king of Macedon from 498 BCE to 454 BCE:

Tell your king (Xerxes), who sent you, how his Greek viceroy of Macedonia has received you hospitably. (Herodotus, “Histories”, 5.20.4, Loeb)

Men of Athens... In truth I would not tell it to you if I did not care so much for all Greece; I myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Greece change her freedom for slavery. I tell you, then, that Mardonius and his army cannot get omens to his liking from the sacrifices. Otherwise you would have fought long before this. Now, however, it is his purpose to pay no heed to the sacrifices, and to attack at the first glimmer of dawn, for he fears, as I surmise that your numbers will become still greater. Therefore, I urge you to prepare, and if (as may be) Mardonius should delay and not attack, wait patiently where you are; for he has but a few days' provisions left. If, however, this war ends as you wish, then must you take thought how to save me too from slavery, who have done so desperate a deed as this for the sake of Greece in my desire to declare to you Mardonius' intent so that the barbarians may not attack you suddenly before you yet expect them. I who speak am Alexander the Macedonian. (From the speech of Alexander I of Macedon when he was admitted to the Olympic games, Herodotus, "Histories", 9.45)

Alexander the Great, king of Macedon, 356 BCE - 323 BCE:

Your ancestors came to Macedonia and the rest of Greece and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury. I have been appointed leader of the Greeks, and wanting to punish the Persians I have come to Asia, which I took from you... (Alexander's letter to Persian king Darius in response to a truce plea, as quoted in "Anabasis Alexandri" by Roman historian Arrian, Book II, 14, 4)

Holy shadows of the dead, I’m not to blame for your cruel and bitter fate, but the accursed rivalry which brought sister nations and brother people, to fight one another. I do not feel happy for this victory of mine. On the contrary, I would be glad, brothers, if I had all of you standing here next to me, since we are united by the same language, the same blood and the same visions. (Addressing the dead Greeks of the Battle of Chaeronea, as quoted in “Historiae Alexandri Magni” by Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus.)

If it were not my purpose to combine foreign things with things Greek, to traverse and civilize every continent, to search out the uttermost parts of land and sea, to push the bounds of Macedonia to the farthest Ocean, and to disseminate and shower the blessings of Greek justice and peace over every nation, I should not be content to sit quietly in the luxury of idle power, but I should emulate the frugality of Diogenes. But as things are, forgive me, Diogenes, that I imitate Heracles, and emulate Perseus, bands follow in the footsteps of Dionysus, the divine author and progenitor of my family, and desire that victorious Greeks should dance again in India and revive the memory of the Bacchic revels among the savage mountain tribes beyond the Caucasus. (Plutarch, "Moralia: On the Fortune of Alexander", I, 332a-b)

Youths of the Pellaians and of the Macedonians and of the Greek Amphictiony and of the Lakedaimonians and of the Corinthians… and of all the Greek peoples, join your fellow-soldiers and entrust yourselves to me, so that we can move against the barbarians and liberate ourselves from the Persian bondage, for as Greeks we should not be slaves to barbarians. (Pseudo-Kallisthenes, “Historia Alexandri Magni”, 1.15.1-4)

Now you fear punishment and beg for your lives, so I will let you free, if not for any other reason so that you can see the difference between a Greek king and a barbarian tyrant, so do not expect to suffer any harm from me. A king does not kill messengers. (Pseudo-Kallisthenes, “Historia Alexandri Magni”, 1.37.9-13)

There are Greek troops, to be sure, in Persian service — but how different is their cause from ours! They will be fighting for pay — and not much of at that; we, on the contrary, shall fight for Greece, and our hearts will be in it. (Addressing his troops prior to the Battle of Issus, as quoted in “Anabasis Alexandri” by Roman historian Arrian, Book II, 7)

Philip V, King of Macedon, 221 BC - 179 BC:

For on many occasions when I and the other Greeks sent embassies to you begging you to remove from your statutes the law empowering you to get booty from booty, you replied that you would rather remove Aetolia from Aetolia than that law (Polybius, “The Histories”, 18.4.8)

Cheers! The Cat and the Owl (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

uhmmm, mr Jankuloski, do you really think that a person with your last name is related in any way to ancient Macedonians?? In fact the name Macedonia is Greek, related to the adjective makednos and to the root mak- still existing in the greek word mak-ros, you can find it yourself in greek-origined english modern words such as macro-economics. Educate yourself before trying to bias history for your own nationalistic purposes. And if you can not find any ancient macedonians self identifying themselves as ancient Greeks look for Alexander the 1st in the early 5th century BC. Why dont you look up the names of ancient Macedonians: Krateros, Philippos, Amyntas, Olympias, Alexandros, Gorgias, Aristoteles, Protagoras, Parmenion, Hephaistion etc etc etc. ALL GREEK. You could not find one single name of an Ancient Macedonian that does not have a purely greek name. And i could tell you this. I am a greek but i do not care at all if Ancient Macedonians were Greeks or just a neighbour nation to Greeks like the ancient Thracians. Since they decided to embrace the greek culture and to be assimilated by Greeks, whats your problem? that still makes them Greeks. Blood doesnt count. What counts is culture, civilization, language and what you really want to be. I recognize your right to have as part of your national name the term "Macedonian", you could call your country either Northern Macedonia, Slavomacedonia or FYR Macedonia. Why dont you recognize our right to not let you Slavomacedonians monopolize this name and its history? At least my name is Dionysios, related to the god Dionysos, worshipped by ancient Macedonians and Alexander the Great (Alexandros o Megas). What is your name really mister -ski? (Dionysios 16:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Yes. Dionysis. And your father is Zeus and mother is cleopatra ! ! DELUSIONAL.

Any 10 year old Greek can read what is written on the tomb of King Philippos. Can you?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 09:00, 3 August 2007

=Hellenistic absorbed??=

The following paragraph makes absolutely no sense:

"Historians generally agree that the ancient Macedonians - whether they spoke a Greek dialect or a distinct language - were absorbed into the Koine Greek-speaking population in Hellenistic times."

Wrong time period. The Hellenistic period did not begin until after the death of Alexander the Great, while we know that the ancient kingdom of Macedon started to take part in the Greek world since at least Alexander I of Macedon, that's a century before King Philip II of Macedon was even born. ~Mallaccaos, 25 May 2006

The assimilation of XMK as a language/ethnicity is generally thought to have taken place in Hellenistic times, not before Alexander III's death. In the lead paragraph things are usually kept brief, but you can add info about the process beginning in pre-Hellenistic times. 69.106.104.144 17:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't match up with the other aspects that have so far been found, which point that XMK as a language/ethnicity was at least starting taken place since the 5th century BC, such as: aside from Thucydides, who lived in the 5th century bc, proclaiming them as part of the ancient "Hellenic" tribes branch, we also have Alexander I of Macedon, who modeled his court after Athens and was a patron of the poet Pindar; Strattis Athenian comedy which presents Macedonian speech as a form of Greek; the Hesychius of Alexandria glosses where the majority of these words can be confidently identified as Greek; Persians who had no stake in calling them Greek, such as King Darius Hystaspes, who ruled over the Macedon kingdom during the 5th century bc, would call them Yaunâ Takabarâ ("Greeks with sunhats"), Yaunâ=Persian word when referring to Greeks and Takabarâ=Persian world in reference to the Macedonian headwear. The Persians must have seem some sort of Hellenic influence to call their Macedonian subjects "Yauna"; the Persians dealt with the ancient people back then, they didn't call the Thracians, Libyans, Carians etc as such, but they did with Macedonians. Plus the Persians had Greeks living in their back yards all over Asia Minor, I'm sure they could have told the difference between the people they ruled over; King Archelaus establishing the new capital at Pella, and holding annual festivals in honor of Zeus at Dion (a city right next to Mt. Olympus); Southern Greeks such as Euripides, Agathon and the famous painter Zeuxis composing some of their most famous works in Macedon at the request of King Archelaus. By the 4th century BC there already numerious Doric inscriptions from pre-Hellenistic Macedon, such as the Pella katadesmos which points that not only there might be the chance that the royal Macedonian families were the only ones who spoke/wrote in some Hellenic dialect but so did the regular folk in a Hellenic Doric/North Western dialect which was not Attic or Koine. Which is why I questioned the "absorbance", if one has that view, of Macedon during the Hellenistic ages, when there is some evidence to suggested it might have started earlier then that. ~Mallaccaos, 25 May 2006

Just a few corrections:

• The political acts of Alexander I tell us something about the political orientation of that king, but hardly about the ethnic background of his subjects - nobody doubts Macedonia started importing Attic culture from the south around that time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The way the first paragrapher of this article was phrased, it sounded like it didn't. ~Mallaccaos, 25 May 2006

• Of the Strattis comedy, one single sentence is preserved, in a writer quoting it centuries later - I'd like to see a reference to a reputed linguist discussing what evidence this yields for the Macedonian language issue.

And how many sentences 'have been preserved to tells us that this single sentence proves other wise? What we do know is that the person playing the Macedonian in the play pronounces Αττικοι as Ωττικοι and υμεις as υμες. I haven't seen anyone disproven this as being false yet.~Mallaccaos, 25 May 2006

Yes, and in the interest of WP:NOR, could you please point us to the linguistic article that discusses how well these supposed dialect features fit in with the properties of the Pella dialect? (Not that I'd exclude they might, but who here is competent to judge this?) By the way, I might be wrong here, but isn't "Ωττικοί" just a case of standard crasis of vocative "ω" with "Αττικοί"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The minute it is pointed to us of the linguistic articles which gives "proof" Borza's "linguistic" evidence disproves ancient Macedonian falling under the Greek dialects. As to the source of the Strattis comedy, it was taken from an article by Alfred Korte quoting Athenaios VII,323b which Sakellariou translated into English. ~Mallaccaos, 27 May 2006

Ah, that's something. Could you provide a full citation of the source so we can include it in the article? As for the linguistic discussion about the pros and cons of the Greek-dialect hypothesis, see the language article, it quotes a few things. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: Ah, I now see you probably got the info from this third-class nationalist website: [1]. That web author manages to get even the quote from Sakellariou wrong. "Ma freen", αα ρε φίλε indeed! Let me make a suggestion: We should all get down from our respective soapboxes and spend a bit more time in libraries instead of on the web arguing and edit-warring. I'm still planning to rewrite the article, but not before I have read both Borza and Sakellariou in the original, and I very much recommend everybody else do the same. I'm not going to enter into any more arguments based on cheap web material. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hesychius is 5th century CE not BCE, almost a millenium after the critical period you're talking about.

I stand corrected on the century but its value can be seen the dialects which are found in it do take back to the works of Aeschylus and Theorcritus which also includes the Macedonian dialect.~Mallaccaos, 25 May 2006

• There aren't "numerous" Doric inscriptions, AFAIK. There's the Pella katadesmos and very little else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse, and as it was stated above, there so much evidence which points to it not falling within the Greek dialects. [roll] Isn't it funny that with each find, it mostly confirms its association with Greek then disproves it? Its interesting that King Archelaus called his new capital Pella, derived from the Doric word, APELLA, which the Doric speaking Spartans (not close friends of the Macedon btw) also used in refrence to a ceremonial location; and what did Archelaus do after building Pella? Ah yes, annual festivals in honor of Zeus at Dion.~Mallaccaos, 25 May 2006

• The Doric material (both Pella and Strattis) do not contradict the claim above about integration into the Koiné Greek-speaking population in hellenistic times, but support it. Whatever the relation between those Doric fragments and the elusive "Macedonian" proper - neither of them was Koiné. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What people seem to not understand when making claims such as that is that the Hellenistic Koiné Greek dialect, which was btw was based on the Attic dialect with numerious regional influences from local dialects, was not a phenomenon particular to Macedonia. Throught out the Greek world the Attic koine replaced the local dialects. So if you are basing the suppose "hellenization" of Macedonian on the integration of Koine Greek, then you might as well base that theory through out the ancient Greek world and say that Attica, Sparta and Thebes became "hellenized" at that same period too. ~Mallaccaos, 25 May 2006

I know what Koine was, thank you very much. The original sentence expressed the development quite precisely: Before the Hellenistic age, there was something that may or may not have been a Greek dialect; after the Hellenistic age, there was something else that was Koine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The original sentence, gave one the assumption that Macedon became a "Hellenic" culture after the entire world had been conquered and Hellenized by the Macedonian Empire, when for the Macedonians to be "supposedly" so "Hellenized" by the time of Alexander the Great, their "Hellinization" would have started much earlier then Koine Hellenic age. Couplet with that all the other material written in this article, it gave the article a different feel to it...which I tried to balance with some of the material I added. This current version which you cleaned up, is much better, IMO, and more balanced to what we do know so far. ~Mallaccaos, 25 May 2006

Glad we agree at least on this. :-) I'd still like to do a rewrite of the whole "controversy" section further down, but it's a big task. We can then also re-introduce some of the material you mentioned, I'd just want to frame it differently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

there is no reason to treat "Ancient Macedonians" in an article different from Macedon. This is a blatant pov fork, containing nothing but a rehash of the topics covered there. A clear "Merge with Macedon". Stop littering new pov forks just to score points in the tired old and boring "Macedonia" coflict. dab (ᛏ) 20:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This article was created by Alexander 007 following a discussion held at Talk:Macedon; and I hadn't been informed that we were vicious pov-pushers attempting to assure the victory for x side. As for "nothing but a rehash of the topics covered there", I found this statement sort of weird; where is the stuff in Macedon that is also in Ancient Macedonians?--Aldux 20:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess the original idea was okay, but the article has spun a bit out of control and has become POV-forkish in large parts through some recent additions. I wouldn't mind refactoring it back into the two other articles, but I think the most pressing task is to put the discussion on a decent basis in the literature, and not that cheap rehashed stuff from the usual nationalist websites (see above). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It a merge is going to take place, then exactly what is merged should be filtered carefully. I think the last sections, expecially the Hellenic controversy section, may not be needed at all. --Telex 20:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons this article was created was to free Macedon from the Hellenic controversy section, that was large, ugly and unscholarly. Removing it made Macedon better and far more peaceful, and I don't want to return to the previous condition. This article is bad now, but it can always be bettered.--Aldux 20:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the [personal attacks removed] have begun to attack this page also, I should explain that the first reference to Herodotus and the Dorians is not mine, although I believe it correct; the second is from Sakellariou's Macedonia. Septentrionalis 23:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, the way it's written it is as if the article is trying to pass a hidden clue to the reader "fairy (bullshit) story" or "Alexander and Philip use that in order to pretend to be Greeks (which they weren't)" etc, etc. Miskin 23:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

PMA/Sept: The evident attacker is you. The vandals you are insinuating are actually very reasonable and contributing users, who are protecting the article from your POV edits, undue weight and original research. Try to blow your steam some other way, or be prepared to face the necessary consequences of WP:NPA.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm taking Telex's suggestion, and citing Herodotus and Sakellariou here. 23:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Pmanderson do you think I'm not in possession of sources that say exactly what I want to write? Well you're wrong. The only reason I'm not making blunt edits here (although I can source every one of them) is because I'm respecting the NPOV policy, which clearly states that during highly controversial subject, _none_ of the views should be favoured over the other. I rewrote your edits in order to respect that policy, and what I get in return is a bunch of banal personal attacks. Miskin 23:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Niskin has now four times deleted a sourced citation of evidence not otherwise mentioned in this article. This is against policy (and common honesty). If he objected to the phrasing, that was within his rights to alter; to delete facts is vandalism. Septentrionalis 23:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

<YAWNS> Miskin 23:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Next time you want to report someone for 3RR, I would advise you to look at the diffs _before_ clicking the edit button. Miskin 00:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that neutrality is important, especially with controversial subjects. but this case is different. the article will be fine if we just stick to fact. theres nothing wrong with contributing what is known, and something needs to be done about people removing information from the article which is in conflict with their cause. dont get me wrong, im trying to be completely neutral here. if a wikipedian has independent sources which corroborate any views of the people of fyrom and their government, feel free to add whatever they say to this article. but dont add something written by them, or anything based on propaganda.

i think if information continues being removed from this article it might need to be protected. or something else. what do you guys think? 68.193.106.206 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool down guys

Okay, you've all edit-warred enough for today.

• I agree with Pmanderson that Herodot's origin stories need to be put into some context, as there certainly are scholars who regard them as (a) mythical and/or (b) applying only to the royal house, not to the people in general. Both can easily be referenced. I think the text he proposed was not quite optimal though, I'd try to make it shorter.
• As for the language formulation ("the language spoken..."), to my mind that formulation is so neutral it does not, in itself, entail a claim to separate-language status. Therefore, the addition ("... or Greek dialect") is unnecessary.

What else were you quarrelling about? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Of course contributions should be edited. If I had been edited, rather than having the text blanked, I would have let reasonable alternatives stand.
  • "Language" is incidental damage, although it is used in this context even by those who consider Macedonian a Greek variant; it is fairly widely considered to be further from the (other) Greek dialects than they are from each other.
  • Miskin has blanked all reference to Herodotus's account of the Argead descent; this unquestionably belongs in this article. I will quote it in full if necessary, although it should not be.
  • He has also left the impression that, if accepted, it would imply the same descent for the Macedonian generals, which does not follow. Septentrionalis 15:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said before this is a very controversial topic and edits must be very elegant. Pmanderson's were not at all, so I rewrote what I could and removed what seemed to be out of context. Nothing is conclusive and no view must be favoured over the other. All views must be given equal emphasis, and the order of presentation will depend on how many sources support each view (and not on the priority Alexander_007 decided to give). The article's sections must also be re-organised. Miskin 01:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to come across a scholar who questions or refutes Herodotus' citation in the article, i.e. that Macedonians were Dorian settlers. The Achaean and Heraclid origin of the Argead dynasty is a different story, and whether factual or not, it was accepted in antiquity even by Thucydides. However historian today do question its validity. Pmanderson's edits on the other hand were implying that scholars who doubt the mythical origin of the Argead dynasty would also doubt the Herodotian account on the Doric origin of Macedonians, which is not at all the case. One is about the Macedonians in general and the other is about its Royal family. Miskin 15:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way pmanderson, there is a school of scholars which regards Macedonian speech to be a Hellenic language sister to the known Greek dialects, and there's another school which regards it simply a Greek dialect with Thraco-Illyrian admixtures. The view on Macedonian being completely distinct to Greek is held by a minority. Miskin 15:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh and pmanderson try to look at other people's edits before accusing them. I didn't blank the reference on Herodotus' accounts on the Argead dynasty [2] (eventhough it's mentioned later in the article). I removed a small paragraph which was making POV conclusions on the ethnicity of the Hellenistic rulers, who were in reality not even Macedonians, therefore largely irrelevant to the section and the article in general. Miskin 15:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following:

• "Both Philip II and Alexander the Great used this claim of kinship to secure recognition as Greeks, including an invitation to the Olympic Games."

Eventhough this is probably sourced, within a such controversian topic you cannot present it as factual, let alone stick it in the "origins" section. As I said before, in my opinion pmanderson's purpose was to mislead the reader into believing that Herodotus' acount on the Dorian invasion is as mythical as his record on the Argead dynasty. I repeat: They are two distinct records. If you find a criticism on the former theory, then by all means stick it in, but don't try to generalise the criticism on the latter in order to refute all of Herodotus' mentions on Macedon.

• "This claim of kinship applies to the Macedonian royal house, which was extinguished shortly after Alexander's death. The Macedonian generals who thereafter made themselves kings over Syria, Egypt, and Macedonia itself were not members of that house; although Ptolemy I sometimes claimed to be an illegitimate son of Philip II"

What does that have to do in the section "origins"? Later Hellenistic rulers were not even Macedonian, they were simply Greeks from all over the world. Therefore I don't see the need to point out the obvious, i.e. that they did not inherit Macedon's royal line. Miskin 16:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Mallacaos' additions

Ehmmm, sorry Mallacaos, but that source doesn't suffice to make it not WP:OR. We're not just dealing with reporting facts here, we're dealing with using facts to argue for an opinion. You've sourced the fact (Greeks as metics), but you haven't sourced the idea that it can serve as an argument about the Ancient Macedonians. Come back when you can say: "Author X has argued that, because even Greeks from other cities were treated as metics, we may conclude that the claim that Macedonians were "barbaroi" does not entail they were non-Greeks." - I very much doubt you will find such an idea in reliable printed sources by reputed historians or linguists. Hint: the difference between "citizen" and "metic" is different from that between "Hellene" and "barbarian". - No partisan websites please ([3]). Quote a book, or even better, a scholarly journal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity

So the Argead dynasty and the kings of Macedon claimed Greek decent, yet we are still 'disputing' whether they were not a Greek peoples? Give me a break.

That's a question I've already asked in the past. It's contradictory isn't it? But that's life. Miskin 10:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL: "Herodotus lies in his book". Quick, someone write to his publishers and send him a stern warning letter with Eurydice, plus relevant news footage from CNN. That will teach him, the rascal! Politis 13:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a usual tactic of propagandists to accuse historians of lying... Poor Herodotus cannot defend himself... However, history has proven him to be right in most of his statements. and about the rest, future will show... Apropos, for centuries people and propagandists believed that Homerus was lying about the Trojan War, or that Linear B was not a Hellenic script... But, History always takes her revenge. and no matter if the Skopjans rename their airport, history can't be erased:). Hectorian 13:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Let them IMO. And then Thessaloniki Airport should be renamed to "International Airport Alexander the Great - Cyril and Methodios - Kemal Ataturk the butcher" or something like that ;-) //Dirak 14:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Back to issue: One theory states that the macedonian kings claimed, even lied, greek descent to advance diplomatic interests. However, the greeks and macedonians mutually saw themselves as distinct people —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 08:55, 3 August 2007

replying to hxseek> Hxseek why don't you stick to Slavic people, where you belong and stop spreading propaganda? Macedonians are Greeks. Macedonians are Hellenes. Proof:

"Your ancestors came to Macedonia and the rest of Hellas and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury. I have been appointed leader of the Greeks, and wanting to punish the Persians I have come to Asia, which I took from you..."

• Alexander's letter to Persian king Darius in response to a truce plea. Arrian, "Anabasis Alexandri", II, 14, 4

if you don't believe all these you can crosscheck them from their original books.

"Our enemies are Medes and Persians, men who for centuries have lived soft and luxurious lives; we of Macedon for generations past have been trained in the hard school of danger and war. Above all, we are free men, and they are slaves. There are Greek troops, to be sure, in Persian service - but how different is their cause from ours! They will be fighting for pay - and not much of at that; we, on the contrary, shall fight for Greece, and our hearts will be in it. As for our foreign troops - Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians, Agrianes - they are the best and stoutest soldiers in Europe, and they will find as their opponents the slackest and softest of the tribes of Asia. And what, finally, of the two men in supreme command? You have Alexander, they - Darius!"

Alexander the Great addressing his troops prior to the battle of Issus. Arrian, "Anabasis Alexandri", II, 7

• Holy shadows of the dead, I’m not to blame for your cruel and bitter fate, but the accursed rivalry which brought sister nations and brother people, to fight one another. I do not feel happy for this victory of mine. On the contrary, I would be glad, brothers, if I had all of you standing here next to me, since we are united by the same language, the same blood and the same visions."

Alexander the Great addressing the dead Greeks of the battle of Chaeronia. Curtius Rufus, "Historia"

these are -ancient- historical facts and evidence collected through centuries from various sources, Greek and non-Greek.

also Alexander's father name was Phillipos, a common Greek name. just like Alexander, all his families names were greek and have meanings in Greek. and in Greek only. Alexander's mother's name was Olympias. if you know a thing about ancient Greeks Olympos is their sacred Mountain of their Greek Gods. that's where her name comes from. where also the name Olympia, a city of southern Greece. and the name "Olympic Games". i guess you know the Olympic Games..

...

"

• Tell your king (Xerxes), who sent you, how his Greek viceroy (Alexander I) of Macedonia has received you hospitably.

Herodotus, "Histories", 5.20.4 ,Loeb

all the above are pure ancient sources.

for some more modern sources>

• The Macedonian kings, who maintained that their Greek ancestry traced back to Zeus, had long given homes and patronage to Greece's most distinguished artists."

Robin Lane Fox, "Alexander the Great", p.48

i can go on forever...

and for the Skopians-Slavs who want to steal history i have to say. Be proud of whatever you are. But Macedonians in the blood you are not. and also>

• We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century (AD)... we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians."

Kiro Gligorov, (first democraticaly elected president of FYROM, referring to the citizens of his country), Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992

i would be surprised if any of you can stand half a point against all these facts....DefendEurope (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Greeks and Macedonians

E. Badian "STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF ART VOL 10: MACEDONIA AND GREECE IN LATE CLASSICAL AND EARLY HELLENISTIC TIMES" by the National Gallery of Art, Washington. , Department of History, Harvard University http://www.gate.net/~mango/Badian.htm

Facts- two Greek rebellions challenge Macedonian foreign domination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.247.99.26 (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Factually, there are many errors in Badian's article above, so why post it?

Spirit of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!

POV?

Instead of learning things about ancient macedonians, the article contantly examines whether they were greeks or not. Well actually I do not thing that such thing as 100% greek exists as it does not exist a 100%french or german or modern macedonian etc. And it would not make any sense to try and explain ancient times with terms of nationality of nowadays. The point of view of this article reflects aspects of racial purity and fascism and it does not belong in a serious socio-cultural or historical study. What is the point anyway? Because of the ridiculous name quarrel, it seems to me that the articles are being used for propaganda reasons -Eug

sadly, this is true. These pages are plagued by nationalists who prevent them from discussing their actual topic. Nobody seems to be interested in the Ancient Macedonians themselves, all that interests people is slapping some ethnic label on them. I find this rather sad; a true patriot would show genuine interest in the past. In this sense, I have met very few true patriots in all these nationalist disputes disrupting Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 08:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think this can only be achieved if and when Greece drops its monopilising attempts over the great ancient macedonians. The Macedons are common to the history of macedonia and greece, and at the same time not the equivalent to either modern Greeks or Macedonians. When we all realise this, then we can focus on learning more and more about them and not proving they are Greek, or whateverHxseek 09:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hxseek 09:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

and when the north or slav-macedonians stop monopolizing the geographic name of macedonia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh brother. This discussion hardly constitutes a reliable form of consensus. If direct evidence emphasizes the ethnic or tribal identity of the ancient Macedonians, then it is our job as users to present that evidence. Unfortunately, there is no detailed description of the type of evidence Rawlison and Ramsey possess to support their arguments regarding the supposed Illyrian, Thracian or mixed origins of the ancient Macedonians. Personally, I could care less if the ancient Macedonians turn out to be Scythians who know how to dance the kalamatiano. What needs to be done is to ensure that direct evidence is provided wherever an argument is placed in the article regarding the origins of the ancient Macedonians. End of story.

To be brutally frank, utilizing terms like "racial purity" and "fascism" to describe moments where users are presenting evidence that emphasize a tribe's ethnic identity is questionable behavior to say the least. Was Herodotus a "fascist" when he described the origins of the Macedonians? No. So, let us please avoid utilizing pathetic and cliche dime-a-dozen pejoratives just because we do not agree with things that exist in reality.

Granted, I agree that users should provide data about the ancient Macedonians other than just data that discusses their ethnic or cultural identity (or self-identity). As users we need to stay focused on any tasks that will help expand and enhance the quality of this article. Talking about "fascism" and "racial purity" really accomplishes nothing. If a few "nationalists" have direct, verifiable, and reliable evidence that focuses on the origins of the ancient Macedonians, then I could care less about whether or not their collective behavior demands our use of trivial pejoratives.

Let's cut the bullshit and get back to work. I deeply apologize for the profanity, but users should know better by now regarding what needs to be done in terms of enhancing the quality of extant (and so-called "controversial") articles. Deucalionite (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

to Hxseek: when Greeks (and many others) show what the ancient Macedonians were, they are monopolizing? but a Slavic group claims heritage and usage of the name Macedonian in a national way it is not? ...150.140.226.157 (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hkseek, hxseeker or whatever, for once I will try to tell you somethings (although I seriously doupt you will understand).

-This article and generally the articles conserning Macedon are not a Greek POV as you claim. They are a product of serious talks and contributions by many editors and represent mainstream theories.

-It is obvious that you use pseudohistory sites like historyofmacedonia.org or similar Slavomacedonian sites as your sources and that from there you find your evidences. Reproducing such fallacies won't help you and people can not take you seriously.

-If you would bother to read the article you might be able to see that it states that Besides the theory which regards Macedonians as a Greek-speaking tribe (Masson, Hammond), the Macedonians were sometimes spoken of as a tribe of Thrace, the land north-east of Greece, akin to the Thracians.(Sir William M. Ramsey). Rather than a Greek origin, some scholars argue that the ancient Macedonians had an Illyrian or Thracian origin. It is also possible that the ancient Macedonians underwent ethnogenesis syncretizing Greek as well as Illyrian, and Thracian elements (cf. Borza, et al.). Searcing historyofmacedonia.org to find all the quotes by scolars who share these theories does not addes gravity to your claims, nor it proves anything more than the obvious: that some have these theories, but most think otherwise, as it has been said, proved and proved again and again in this and similar talk pages. Try to read some of these, before editing. Kapnisma ? 07:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with most of what you say. And i din't state that this particular article is POV. Its just the language section i think tends to make the conclusion that the languag was greek a little too explicitly, when most would agree that the conclusion is still not 100% due to the fact that (a) little, if no, ancient macedonian text exists (b) the couple of hundred ancient macedonian words are not really sufficient to definitively decide a conclusion (although I am no linguist) and many words are actually hellenised because of the overwhelming cultural influence of Greece. As for you attack on my sources, I don't see why scholars from england or the US would have a POV on the matter. In fact i didn;t use any Macedonian (slav) thoughts. It appears that some people like to gloss over theories which don't agree with the greek side

However, contrary to what you may beleive, I am not necessarily trying to advance the view that Macedonians aren't greek. Hxseek 09:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hxseek: you say that "little, if no, ancient macedonian text exists". Based on such an argument, namely on the non-existence of texts, we could speculate that there may have been hundreds of other languages. The only language we know for sure that was spoken in ancient Macedonia is Greek, Macedonian Greek. I am not aware of any references to a distinct, non-Greek, 'Macedonian language'. Besides, Greek cities or regions occasionally accused eachother of speaking poor Greek or even of not being Greek. The Athenians did it to the Spartans and to the Macedonians, the Spartans to the other Greeks, aso... Politis 11:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Helle. TOpic ancient macedonian language

Hi Kapnisma. The reason for my editing of the introduction for 'ancient macedonians' article is as follws: It reads

"Historians generally agree that the ancient Macedonians, whether they originally spoke a Greek dialect or a distinct language, belonged to the Koine Greek speaking population in Hellenistic times"

I beleive this is an unclear statement. From what i understand, Koine Greek is the language that came into common use after antiquity, the result of the 4 main ancient greek dialects. ANd, yes, this language became widespread in anceint Macedonia during the time of Alexander the Great. WHat is not known is whether it was spoken by everbody in Macedonia, or just the nobles/ traders/ administators, etc

But that is beside the point. An introductory paragraph should outline the theories about the nature of ancient macedonian language itself. Ie it would be more appropriate to state something like "Theories regarding the ancient macedonian language differ, with scholars placing it either as a dialect of Ancient Greek, a distinct though related language to greek, or an altogether seperate Indo-European language. Whatever the case, it belongs to the paleo-Balkan language group, as does Greek, Thracian and Illyrian".

{I am note trying to be anti-Greek. I am genuinely interested in the topic and simply what to make the article as best as it can be) 203.166.99.230 07:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you are Hxseeker, now about whether Koine Greek was spoken as you put it just by the nobles/ traders/ administators, etc, the 6000 inscriptions of it that have been found across Macedonia (in graves, pottery, stones, degrees, etc), combined with Pella katadesmos, other Doric inscriptions and the absolute absence of any other inscription in any form of a mystirious forgotten language or in Illyrian or Thracian is the main reason why most researchers are concluding that although we do not have enough data to adequately classify their language it most propably was if not a form of Greek, then a sibling language and a fact that those who reject it have no explanation and a response to that. (Please, do not start quoting from the usual sites that you use as source every single one who has your views again, as proof)

Kapnisma ? 08:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to correct you on this. When linguists talk about whether Ancient Macedonian was Greek or not, they definitely, always, mean exactly that forgotten, unwritten, mysterious language that is not what the inscriptions are. The language in which gotán meant 'pig' and danós meant 'death'. The inscriptions are Greek, pure and simple, of course. That the other language, whatever it was, did not get written is no surprise at all. 99% of all ancient languages never got written. Whether or not that mysterious "other" language was what the majority of Macedonians would have spoken at the time of Alexander is yet another question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

and whether or not that "mysterious" language is a ghost language that never really existed, but you make it up out of your..mind in order to make a hypothesis is also another question. what is not in question is that ancient Macedonians as a whole spoke Koine Greek and no other language by the Hellenistic era, they also spoke Attic earlier, and a NW Doric Greek dialect even earlier.150.140.226.157 (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I was refering to whether the Koine Greek was spoken just by some, as our friend was suggesting, or by the whole population during Hellenistic era. Secondary, that forgotten, unwritten, mysterious language, apart from gotan and danos (rather curious indeed, if greek), also included hundreds of greek first names (not only the well known Alexander and Phillip, but also Ptolemaieos, Orontes, Polysperhon, Perdikkas, etc), dozens of greek placenames (Pella, Aegae, Lete, Aliakmon, Argos Orestikon, etc), tens of other easily understandable as greek words for social associations, such as etairos, names of months, etc, etc. All these, combined with the fact that no other inscriptions, apart from greek ones was ever found is an unchallengeable fact not easily expalinable with naive arguments like common indoeuropean legacy. To conclude, their language although hard to classify due to lack of data, can easily explained as beloging to Greek family, rather that any other else, according to the above. Of course, there are other views too, but they can not give adequate answers why a non greek population was giving greek names to their people, cities, mountains, rivers, etc (O. Masson) or why the archaelogical researches reveals clearly greek pottery, artcrafts, architectural style, etc in their cities and graves and not something else as the findings in Illyrian and Thracian graves and cities are giving us. Kapnisma ? 17:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but you as Future Perf said, ancient Macedonian was not written. So the words 'discovered' in Macedonia could be Greek per se (not Macedonian), thus giving a conclusion that the macedonian language was greek, or something similar. None of what you have stated actually disproves our points

Similar situations have occurred even in not as distant history, whenever a culturally dominant people interacts with other culturs. Eg the Germanization of Boheimian nobles during the late middle ages. They spoke, legislated and wrote in German. An archeologist from the future, finding German inscriptions throughtout Bohemia, would concluded that the boheimians were Germans and spoke German, although we very well know that they are not. In fact the large majority of the masses did not even speak any German, but being largely illeterate, they might have left no traces of Boheimian language. Just an analogy (and czeque language was written, but just an illustrative point)

Now, all i was saying is that you may want to clarify the intro. Yes, ancient macedonia came to speak Koine Greek during and after Alexander the GReat, but before this, the exact nature of their language was unknown. As i said before "Theories regarding the ancient macedonian language differ, with scholars placing it either as a dialect of Ancient Greek, a distinct though related language to greek, or an altogether seperate Indo-European language. Whatever the case, it belongs to the paleo-Balkan language group, as does Greek, Thracian and Illyrian". And we may never know because of the lack of written anceint macedonian words. Many words found throughout Macedonia are pure and simply Greek, being interpreted by some scholars as proof that ancient macedonian language was greek. Hxseek 00:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments, Hxseek, have been responded above and if you consider yours as more solid, let's leave it to the understanding of someone else who will also read our conversation. But, risking repeating myself, I will tell you that you have failed to explain why there is not even a single one word found in any other language, apart from Greek, why the toponyms are Greek, why, finally archeology reveals greek art, greek burial customs, greek pottery, etc, etc everywhere in Macedonia. As it concerns your other argument the Germanization of Boheimian nobles during the late middle ages an archaeologist from the future wouldn't suppose they were German, because i)their names were Bohemian (while the approximately 600 Macedonian ones, saved to us, ARE Greek [Hoffmann, O. Die Makedonen. Ihre Sprache und ihr Volkstum for the entire vocabulary]), ii)their cities, rivers, mountains were in Bohemian language, not in German (while Macedonian ones ARE, again Greek), iii) the artistic style of their artcrafts, the type of their houses, their burial customs, etc, etc was not German (while Macedonian ones ARE Greek). So, you can understand what both I and the article are saying: That although the data, saved to us, is not enough, due to the above, most researchers consider Macedonian language to be Greek, or at least belonging to Greek family, but some others believe something else. Kapnisma ? 11:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, although there would be large differences in development of nationalist consciousness between antiquity and medieval times . Anyway, all i was trying to impress upon you is that maybe the intro could be modified. I wrote it in the discussion forum out of good faith. What I proposed aimed to incorporate the different theories re: language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 04:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the argument that there are "not many" or "few" inscriptions dating before the mid 4th century does not bear any gravity, since fist of all it is a very subjective argument. Instead of saying that "there are thousands of inscriptions that prove...", we could always claim the exact truth. "That there are NO inscriptions found from the age of Macedon yet that are in a language different from Greek". This is true and until we have a number of the Greek inscriptions, we make a strong point while allowing for other inscriptions to be found, if ever...

GK1973 (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

About merging the article with Macedon

Definely no. This article contains quit detailed information about the ancient macedonians that if included in the article of Macedon will simply make the latter very long, and very difficult to follow. I thing that the current format is fine with links from the one article to the other Italiotis 17:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The material could easily be shortened. There's quite a lot of unnecessary overlap with yet a third article, Ancient Macedonian language, which means the language paragraph should really just be a brief summary anyway. There's also far too many long block quotes, all of this can be reduced and summarised. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

indeed. Ancient Macedonians is little more than an argumentative pov-fork. What are "Ancient Macedonians"? They are the inhabitants of Macedon. That's it. Everything is concerned with the modern nationalist "were they Greeks?" question. Nobody seems to be interested in discussing them as a group in their own right. This is {{coatrack}}ing. Argumentative blather about Greekness of Macedonians belongs on Macedonian naming dispute, Macedonism or Greek nationalism, not here. What can we say about the Macedonians? They were Atticized from the 5th century -- like Macedon. Before the 5th century, they spoke a separate language, the Ancient Macedonian language. Hey, let us tell you about this language (about 60% of article, never mind that it has its own very detailed article). Finally, here's a list of Macedonians, and an anecdote about participation in the Olympic Games. There is nothing here that could not be either pruned as redundant, or merged into a short "population" section at Macedon. dab (𒁳) 08:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If they spoke a separate language or a separate dialect is the unanswered question for both sides and has nothing to do with the modern disputes

77.49.0.219 15:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

and nobody seems to be interested in discussing what the Macedonians said about themselves(self-determination right)

and Not what the other groups said about them

77.49.0.219 15:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually all texts from any civilization of the time determined the Macedonians as Greeks. The Persians, the Romans, the Jews...

We know that the Persians called them "Greeks with broad hats"

The Romans clearly determined them as Greeks

“For if all the wars which we have carried on against the Greeks are to be despised, then let the triumph of Marcus Curius over king Pyrrhus be derided; and that of Titus Flamininus over Philip; and that of Marcus Fulvius over the Aetolians; and that of Lucius Paullus over king Perses; and that of Quintus Metellus over the false Philip; and that of Lucius Mummius over the Corinthians. (Orations of Cicero)

The Jews...

“And when he had said this to Parmenio, and had given the high priest his right hand, the priests ran along by him, and he came into the city. And when he went up into the temple, he offered sacrifice to God, according to the high priest's direction, and magnificently treated both the high priest and the priests. And when the Book of Daniel was showed him wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended.” (Josephus, Book IX, 8.5)

The bible...

From The Machabees...

“1:11. And there came out of them a wicked root, Antiochus the Illustrious, the son of king Antiochus, who had been a hostage at Rome: and he reigned in the hundred and thirty-seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks.”

“11:24. And we have heard that the Jews would not consent to my father to turn to the rites of the Greeks but that they would keep to their own manner of living and therefore that they request us to allow them to live after their own laws.”

And many others...

Actually there is only ONE argument as to the barbarism of the Macedonians from Demosthenes, and even he only claimed it ONCE in thousands of lines he wrote in many orations against Phillip...

GK1973 (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not merge. Article should remain as there are articles about other ancient populations. It is also important to have arguments about their origin. Seleukosa 08:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No merge. This is an important article concerning the modern Macedonian naming dispute. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 13:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge? Of course not. Then we should have to merge all country articles with people articles. Do our friends from the north want to merge Republic of Macedonia with Macedonians (ethnic group)? since the latter is "an argumentative POV-fork"? Don't think so...--   Avg    19:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thracian Kings and Olympic games

Were exactly are the references that Thracians Kings were talking part in the Olympic games?? Can someone provide a link or a reference so that we can verify this claim? Seleukosa (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Some newspapers are not proof or reliable references for an incredible fact that a Thracian king could participate to the Olympic Games. Please provide a real reference or if possible the quote from the original ancient text that said so! The only possibility of participating is only if he was of Greek descent and only if he was able to prove it! Being an honorable citizen of Athens would have given him the right to participate as a viewer and not as an athlete! I am deleting the passage unless a reference from a respectful historian can be found or at list the quote from the original ancient Greek text is found! Seleukosa (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Map

File:Macedon2.JPG

Ugly map

We currently have this map in the article. It's probably useful, but terribly ugly. I'd be prepared to re-draw it, I think I could produce something better. Is the content of the map as such uncontroversial? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You know what i think and what i will source to back it..Its ok but ugly.Also pointing out the territories would be better.Megistias (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just talking about territories. The map will not touch on the ethnic character of either the Macedonians or any of their neighbours. This was really just a factual question: are those borders approximately correct? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe i have seen the original map for this a while ago thought i cant find it right now(curses).Approximately this is the expanansion but we have to verify.Megistias (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Proof, Deleted evidence about the Greekness of Macedonians

why do you delete evidence? why is this article not including the fact that "All of the over 6000 inscriptions found in Macedonia until now are in Greek: Inscriptiones Graecae, Part X: Inscriptiones Epiri, Macedoniae, Thraciae, Scythiae. Multiple vols., Berlin. See Online Epigraphical Database"

is there a reason? why do you hide evidence like that? if there is not, can you see why we should not put this in there? how can the reader know about ancient Macedonian inscriptions? it must be there. DefendEurope (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Few of them may be relevant. The ones before 330 BC and the ones bearing peculiar Greek names or words.Catalographer (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Modern scholars section ( per WP:RS)

Modern scholars section is poor and definitely needs to be updated. We got opinion here of William Mitchell Ramsay (died 1939) and George Rawlinson (diet 1902) claiming an Illyrian or Thracian origin of ancient Macedonians while more than 80 actually modern respected and reliable scholars stating ancient Macedonians were Greek are not mentioned! I understand that perhaps it’s too much to cite 80 scholars, but we can cite 40, or even 20. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep the oldies must be removed.Megistias (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I’ve updated it. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Tellon from Orestis

Tellon is probably this fella "Τέλλων Μαινάλιος παίδων πύξ" Anonymi Historici (FGrH)(1139) Victores olympici(fort auctore Phlegonte vel Eratosthene)(P.oxy 222)(026),Occurence volume-Jacobi#F 3b,415,F fragment 1 line 16.

• There is a huge list of olympic winners. Megistias (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And the name is attested as "Τέλλον" as wellMegistias (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Massive source addition.

Honestly, don't you think that this is a bit over the top? I'm sure many sources could be found to support all views in the section. Can we just stick to the ones already included? 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Though not even 1/4, it’s fine with me. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Beside few historians of 19th century (with no archaeological findings at that time) and modern political motivated Slav-Macedonians there aren’t any respectfully scholars who have argued against the Greek origin of the ancient Macedonians. Even Borza has agreed. Seleukosa (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Borza says maybe..Catalographer (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Primary and Secondary Sources should not be divided

If you want so many quotes without their secondary comments by scholars, this fits in wiki-quote but not in wikipedia.

Only Herodotus has stated about the origins of Macedonians and we need the secondary sources on this specific passage Catalographer (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Added John Crossland's. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Crossland's quote is about Perdiccas the first Argead king of Macedonians according to Herodotus. I was referring to Herodotus 1.56.1 "they settled, under the name of Macedonians, in the chain of Pindus".Catalographer (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Herodot as to the Macedonians

What Herodot said was not that :

"the Macedonians were a Greek tribe left behind during the great Dorian invasion "

He says that the Greek tribe of the Macedonians who migrated south into Peloponnesus were renamed to Dorians.

The text presented in the article reads :

“ ...for during the reign of Deucalion, Phthia 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 of Macedonians, in the chain of Pindus. Hence they once more removed and came to Dryopis; and from Dryopia having entered the Peloponnese in this way, they became known as Dorians."

Thus, the text should read that "According to Herodot, the Macedonians later migrated into (or invaded) Peloponnesus where they were named Dorians."

GK1973 (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonians were Ancient Greeks?

The doubt comes from the use of the word "Philhellene" (a term reserved for non-Greeks) to refer to Ancient Macedonians (by Ancient Greeks) and from a very likely distinct origin for Ancient Macedonians and Ancient Greeks [Ref.: Eugene Borza, "In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon"]. Therefore the article should focus on the description of Ancient Macedonians and leave the doubtfull Greek origins aside.Ilidio.martins (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Man, you just don't quit. You are a man on a mission, aren't you? That is a very weak argument you make, because as people have already told you, in the ancient context "Philhellene meant "Greek patriot" [4]. You've already been told this [5], but you just ignore it and keep repeating yourself over and over. Not only that, but you also have absolutely no source to back what you are saying. --Tsourkpk (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

While the article certainly could use a lot of work (notice similar opinions expressed above; some argued for a merging with Macedon since this served as mostly POV-pushing, though it's been fixed quite a bit since then), it doesn't state that the ancient Macedonians were certainly Greek. In any case, I agree that "the article should focus on the description of Ancient Macedonians". Stop acting disruptively and make some proposals, instead. ;) (Btw only Alexander I was called a philhellene to my knowledge, and the word indeed was used for Greeks as well in antiquity. In such a case, we would need secondary sources that comment on/explain the primary sources.) 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed only Alexander I from Macedon, plus a couple of other Greeks from various places, and various other references on the same meaning in the Greek context. See Philhellenism#Philhellenes in Antiquity. NikoSilver 12:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"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" -Waldemar Heckel, Bryn Mawr Classical Review (a review on "In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon By Eugene N. Borza", so stop citing Borza. :) 212.120.7.4 (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Error ?

Before removing this part, does anyone have any reference to even one text during the early macedonian kingdom that refers to the Macedonians as barbarians? I am not aware of any such text but I want to hear any opinion on this before removing it...

"During the early kingdom, as in the case of the Aetolians, Macedonians were often regarded by the southern Greeks as "barbarians". "

GK1973 (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if it were sourced, mentioning it is a blatant violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:POV , because it serves only to advance the agenda that "Macedonians were not Greeks". No rational editor would include that information in their article on Macedonians, unless if they also included the subsequent remarks that "calling another Greek a 'barbarian' was a common practice among rival Greeks in ancient times", which absolutely nullifies the original intent of the first premise. I am adding a {{fact}} for now, and will be removing it aggressively on the grounds of WP:V in 3 days. Then, if someone insists in re-adding it (with a source, of course), I will add the source for the 'common practice'. NikoSilver 12:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, someone did revert it again so I reverted it back.

GK1973 (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Omitted/deleted words in Lede?

A sentence in the Lede currently reads, ungrammatically and ambiguously:

"The Macedonian Royal family known as the Argead dynasty claimed Greek descent and Macedonians Kings since Alexander I were allowed in the Ancient Olympic Games but contested, an athletic event in which only people of Greek origin participated[3][4]."

[Added bolding indicates problemmatical parts.] Logic and my understanding of subsequent text in the article suggest this might better read:

"The Macedonian Royal family known as the Argead dynasty claimed Greek descent, and Macedonia's Kings from Alexander I onward were allowed not only to attend but also to contest in the Ancient Olympic Games, an athletic event in which only people of Greek origin participated[3][4].

I've tried here to preserve the original flavour implied by the "but", though I would be inclined to replace "not only . . . but also" with the shorter and more positive "both . . . and". If someone with access to references [3] & [4] can confirm this version accords with them, could they perhaps make the substitution? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many clear problems with these statements and I changed them, unfortunately anonymously but added my name i the changes.

1. obvious grammatical mistakes

2. The "but contested" part makes no sense in English though I suppose that the person who added this wanted to say that Alexander I's Greekness was contested by the rest of the Greeks. This should be mentioned in the article (clearly not there)but dear Somebody, the verdict of the Hellanodicae should also be mentioned, that he conclusively was deemed a Greek.

3. By no means did only Kings compete in the Olympics as far as the Macedonians are concerned. We have commoners who contested and won, which of course in turn shows that common Macedonian people DID contest in the Olympics. We have the names of some winners and of course there are all those whose names we do not have since they did not win. I would also point out that the Argeads were not only the royal bloodline of the "Macedonians". They were a tribe of Macedonians as Strabo clearly says (text will be provided if info disputed, maybe it should also be added in the article). The Argead royal boodline was the Temenids.

And of course there is no evidence that Macedonians did not contest in the Olympics before Aleander I. We are also told that his Greekness was disputed, but overruled. Do not forget that at the time the Macedonian kingdoms (kingdom is a wrong term, since there were more than one Macedonian tribe and more than one Macedonian kingdom) were subject to the Persians... This is why I added "at least since Alexander the I"

GK1973 (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

heavily atticized??

Could somebody explain me the point of this expression in the introduction? What does this mean and why is this here?

Does it mean that the Macedonians were heavily influenced by the Athenians by that time in terms of culture and language? Does it mean that they spoke Attic by that time and not Aeolic or Dorian? Does it mean that the Koine of the late 3rd and 2nd centuries BC was Attic?

This sentnce is clearly wrong as it stands there alone and unsupported. If someone supports it, he should make sure that it be analyzed in its proper place.

So I strongly propose its removal from the introduction, for alone it confuses rather than helps explain...

GK1973 (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it meant that from the 4th century onwards they adopted the attic dialect (which is the accurate sense of the phrase). The koine was developed a bit later. 194.219.26.65 (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Difference vs. Similarity

Hello. I'm fairly new to this, so please don't mind the way of handling things around :) I would just like to put this topic, so we can summarize what makes Macedonians and Greeks so similar or different. Here is a start (oh, and no poetry, like ancient citations or something, please):

- Has anyone of you ever seen a political, social or anyway else similarity between how Macedonia was organized, and how were the Greek states organized? :) Bobvo (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bobvo, if there is a point that you want to make just make it clear, so that it can be addressed to. Just making questions and waiting for answers with no clear purpose is not what we are doing here. I could easily answer your question but this is not what we are suposed to do here, so if there is a clear point, dispute or suggestion you want to make on this article, please go on and put it here for discussion. And please, try to be as civilized and unprovocative as possible in issues that attract a lot of fanaticism, issues like the Greekness or not of ancient Macedonia.

And of course, ancient citations are the main sourves we have on ancient matters whether of interest here or not, so do not try to downgrade their immense importance, please. They form the foundation of history as we know it, since archaeology alone cannot delve into such matters. I really hope that I have misunderstood your tone and innuendos, but if you wish for yet another fruitless debate, do it in a forum suitable for this.

GK1973 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it doeas have a point - the whole article is about Macedonians been Greek or not, pan-hellenic games, greek language, alfa, beta, bla, bla, bla... Is this article "The orign of Ancient Macedonians"? I think it should have some info about the Macedonians, at least about social organization, religion, habbits and traditions of the Macedonians, not just this pity escuse for article, in a form of verifying that each and every time when the Macedonians are mentiond, the Greeks are put in the same sentance. I mean, WTF? Get it right! Agreee? :) 212.120.7.4 (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

So... make suggestions. What do you want to see added or what do you want to add? And please, sign your anwers. By the way, this article is about the people alone. As far as their politics, social organization etc are concerned look up the article "Macedon", which is about their political entities. I agree though that this article has to expand.

GK1973 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, never mind the heading of this section. I would like this article, since it has a reference section bigger then the article himself, to be more concentrated on the Macedonians, not their (not)Greeknes. I hereby call upon those who wrote the article, to expand their nationalistic horizons and use those references to add something about Macedonians religion (Xantika, for example), customs, what were they eating, for example, why did they drink so much, know, something about themselves. I've read the Macedon article, but it says more about the kingdom, how do I put it... its macro-oriented :) I would like a little bit more micro-approach here, agree :) Bobvo (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What Macedonian religion? Do you mean the dodecatheon? Who or what is Xantica? Give universally acknowledged sources or / and ancient texts. I agree with you that there should be more information on the Macedonians. So, if you have any sources you want to quote or any particular data you want to add, make your proposals here. Thanks. GK1973 (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that our fellow user from the Republic is referring to Xanthika (Ξανθικά), some sort of purification festival of the army that took place during the Xanthikos (Ξανθικός) month. Any more information (and addition to the article, why not) would be welcome. I believe Polybius(?) mentions specifics. 3rdAlcove (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

To expand this article

3rd Alcove, I agree that we can expand this article and make it much better than it is now. But what will be done must be done with care, for this issue is political as well as historical and affects millions of people. As far as I am concerned, I have no problem stating that there is a contest for the Greekness of the Macedonians nowadays but making it sound as though there was one in the past is very far fetched and should be VERY well supported. You mentioned two names, Isocrates, a politician who clearly believed that the Macedonians are Greeks and Thucidides who never in his histories disputed the Greekness of the Macedonians. If you want to use ancient literature (which is the correct way to go) you will have to come up with the exact extracts. Even nowadays, there is only a small minority of historians who try to support that the Macedonians were not Greeks and of these most (including E. Borza) state the assumption that they MIGHT not be Greeks, clearly stating that the evidence is against their supposition. Again, I have no problem presenting an alternate side as long as this is clearly stated, thatis that this is exactly what this is about... another theory, supported by the small minority of academics. You also pointed out that Macedon was according to Hesiod not a son of Helen, but Macedon was a grandson of Deucalion, a Greek by definition since the progenitor of the Hellenes was not Helen but Deucalion. Anyways, the dominant academic position is clearly that the Macedonians were nothing else but a Greek tribe and throughout the ancient years, there was absolutely NO dispute on this issue. There was NO historian, whether Greek, Roman, Jew or of any other origin that called the Macedoniams non Greeks or barbarians. Demosthenes used the term, but his adversary Aeschines did not. Isocrates, also a contemporary Athenian did also not call any Macedonian a barbarian. Read what Aeschynes said and you will be amazed of the Greekness he pours on the Macedonians. (He mentions common Macedonian names, talks of the common Gods and the songs the embassadors sang in Phillip's court etc)

So, should we want to add cultural information and details on the Macedonians, we have to do it in a scientific way that will not distrb historicity and if we want to mention alternative theories on the non Greekness of the Macedonians it can be easily done in a clear paragraph named "Non Greek orgin of the ancient Macedonians theory" or sth like that.GK1973 (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GK. I also do not have any objection to include the minority scholarship disputing the Greekness of Ancient Macedonians. But it must be clear that it is a minority, and that the majority has certain specific conclusions. 3rdAlcove non-consensual edits obscured, instead of clarifying this issue. On the issue of Demosthenes, let me just say a few things: Yes, he called Macedonians "barbarians", and I mention that clearly, without hiding anything (and why, should we, Greeks, be afraid of the truth?) in his wiki-article I rewrote, and brought to FA status. But Demosthenes' characterization had mainly a "cultural" substance and meaning. Macedonians were the "uncivilized" compared with the "civilized" Athenians, Spartans etc., who deserve and are honored to be called "Greeks". Demosthenes did not make a genealogy research neither referred to the "Greekness" of the Macedonians. According to his view, they were not "Hellenes" because they were not so civilized to constiture members of the "hellenic civilization". That is why they are "barbarians". Actually Philip is a "barbarian". His criticism is concentrated on him; not on the whole Macedonian nation. And, 3rdAlcove, do not underestimate the personal Philip-Demosthenes rivalry; two bitter enemies ready to accuse each other of the most horrible things. Being a "barbarian" is just one of these horrible groundless accusations; there were more by both men and their "puppets". Tsatsos correctly points out that "Demosthenes regarded as Greeks only those who had reached the cultural standards of south Greece and he did not take into consideration ethnological criteria."

In general, I share the worries of 3rdAlcove about the article. But is he willing to undertake the task as a whole, and not sporadically? Is he willing to research this minority scholarship, and provide the proper references and citations? If yes, I am more than willing to help him with my experience in upgrading articles (if this experience matters at all). But non-consensual edits non-supported with material and references do not help. On the other side, co-operation and mutual work on the article could do miracles.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as Demosthenes is concerned he of course called Philip a barbarian, twice in all his speeches (another evidence that the characterization was nothing but an insult since his speeches against Philip and the Macedonians were numerous indeed). Of course he is also called a barbarian by Aeschines, his political opponent in Athens, who says that Demosthenes is a barbarian on his mother's side. This has nothing to do with Demosthenes's words but helps make clear how the Greeks sometimes used the term to insult rather than really characterize someone's Greekness. There are numerous examples of Greek writers calling other Greeks barbarians. What makes the difference is

a. the frequency the term is used (hundreds or thousands of times concerning Romans, Persians, Illyrians etc) b. the context (usually the term barbarian is used not as an insult but as a determinant only and bears no ill meaning)

So one has to ask how many times are the Macedonians called barbarians in ancient AND medieval texts? The answer is : too few to mention... The Macedonians are mentioned in ancient and medieval texts as many times (if not more) as Spartans and Thebans together... Yet, apart from some political speeches of Demosthenes's times the Macedonians are NEVER called barbarians or given ANY other history or prehistory than totally Greek. They always are spoken to in Greek, they always speak Greek (if you read Arrianos's testament of Philotas' trial it is clear that the Macedonian "tongue/dialect" is Greek). Anyways, if needed we can keep on talking anout the Greekness or non Greekness of the Macedonians for countless pages. The important thing is that the academic community as a whole acknowledges the Greekness of the Macedonians and that is why their history and culture is taught universally under the term "Classical Greek Studies". This is proof enough that at least for the time being the Grekness of the Macedonians can be disputed only as an alternative theory NOT accepted but by the great minority of historians and archaeologists.

So... let's get to the point. Points to be analyzed according to my opinion are :

A. the different tribes of the ancient Macedonians. B. their origin as attested by the ancients and archaeology. C. cultural events taking place in ancient Macedonia as well as cultural events the Macedonians took part in outside their borders. D. their religion (according to my sources Greek in all aspects, if anybody has to add something different he can always procure sources) E. their language as attested by texts and archaeology (again if somebody has sources about some non Greek lamguage he should procure sources). The work of those FYROMian engineeres about the Rosetta Stone is NOT accepted by the international academic community (which persists supporting that the middle text is middle demotic egyptian) and we can discuss it but it can hardly be used as evidence, though the thory that the Macedonians did not speak Greek or spoke a "barbarous" Greek dialect can be analyzed. F. any info on art, foods, science, technology would also be welcome.

Anything else?

GK1973 (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Thucydides: Do not forget that Thucydides called:"barbarians" even the Epirotes who resided in Dodona, which was considered by many (as Aristotle) the cradle of Greeks.The point I am trying to make is, Thucydides is not disputing the Greekness of anyone, rather the level of civilisation they had in comparison to Athens.--Michael X the White (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I already said that Thucidides DID NOT call or anytime hint that the Macedonians were barbarians... NEVER... I don't know how something like that could be said by someone who has read Thucidides. He even clearly differentiaites when he talks about an army of barbarians and another one of Macedonians...

GK1973 (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. --Michael X the White (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Disamb note, clean up tag etc.

3rdAlcove changed the disamb note at the top of the article from "This article is about the people of ancient Greek; for the unrelated modern Slavic ethnic group see Macedonians (ethnic group)." to "This article is about the people of classical antiquity; for the unrelated modern Slavic ethnic group see Macedonians (ethnic group)."

It is definitely a minor issue, and therefore I do not intend to allow myself to get involved in an edit war for this matter. Nevertheless, I do not understand why it is so bad to make clear what the scholars' community and the historians diachrinically agree on, that the ancient Macedonians were ancient Greeks (note that I do not say "Greeks" but "ancient Greeks"). This is the scholars consensus on them, as the scholars' consensus for the modern "Macedonians" (feel free to remove the quotation marks if you do not like them) is that they are Slavs. So, honestly I do not understand the rationale of this change. We change the note because of Demosthenes, one or two more historians saying that "maybe" they were not Greeks, and some groundless, vague and inconsistent criticisms of the established theory coming from fYROM? I bring this issue here for further input by other editors. I think GK1973 comprehensively exposed the diachronic consensus on the Ancient Macedonians, and if 3rdAlcove questions anything, and has sources and material to enlighten us, I am all ears.

About the clean-up tag I cannot disagree, and I first said that the article needs a lot of work. And I also stressed that if 3rdAlcove who correctly points out its flaws is willing to undertake the task, I'll definitely help him. Or even better, we can collectively with GK and any other interested editor undertake the task.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely the point at issue. The argument of the Macedonians here is that ancient Greece ended at Thessaly; I find it difficult to dismiss this entirely when Pausanias supports it. I would not object to Greek in the article myself, but I do recognize that there are two sides; the dab header is not the place to make these assertions.

But the inhabitants of classical antiquity is no improvement; that's everybody in the ancient world. The Macedonians were a people/populus/ethnos, and if we need a noun, it would be hard to find a better one; I do not see that it invades the central question at all. So were the Ionians. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• As for cleanup: holds a record does not mean tells or asserts or relates; it means that Herodotus either attained an unparallelled athletic score, or has a phonodisc in his hands. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I really fail to see the problem here... Noone disagrees with the fact that there is a small minority of academians who support that the Macedonians were not Hellenes themselves, even though they were hellenized and considered by many, especially Non Hellenes (like Romans, Jews and Persians) as Hellenes. As long as this is clear there is no Greek who would disagree with mentioning arguments and hypotheses on that point. BUT, it has to be also accepted by those who do not view the Macedonians as Hellenes that their point of view is ONLY SUPPORTED BY A MINORITY and is not the "new", "modern" or "prevalent" point of view. And then of course comes the question of how we should adress a dispute such as this. The answer is also clear. ANY serious encyclopedia over the world bases its articles on the prevalent position of the academic community and mentions the existance of other positions, which can be more analytically discussed in independent articles (like "The Non-Hellenic origin of the ancient Macedonians hypothesis"). Although there will be people from FYROM who will greatly disagree with this point of view, although I do not claim that their point of view should be hidden or buried, we could also dispute so many articles with theories such as "the Italians have nothing to do with the ancient Romans, since for centuries their cities were occupied by various German tribes", that "the Romans were actually Greeks, a fact they themselves attested", that "Hitler was a very ethical and well minded person who is brutally slandered by the victor's propaganda", that "the people of FYROM who call themselves Macedonians are in reality Bulgarians", "that the ancient Greeks were black" etc etc etc... All of these arguments have been uttered and are supported by actually MORE people and academians than those who support the non-Greekness of the ancient Macedonians. Is this what we want? To NEVER be able to write anything because some wish that their opinion was supported by more people? We can argue for pages and pages about the issue and it would be evident, as it is to any editor here who occupied himself with this issue even for a small amount of time, that the Hellenic origin and self identification of the ancient Macedonians is by far the most prevalent theory and is supported by the huge majority of evidence, whether archaeological or historical. This is why the academic community places the teaching of the ancient Macedonian history and culture under the Classical GREEK studies. Does this mean that the other theory does not exist? Of course not. It should be mentioned BUT it can't be treated as equal or we run a HUGE risk of having MOST articles in Wikipedia disputed and rewritten. So, friends from FYROM or supporters of this theory, place your arguments in writing and make an article to really present this theory and dear Greeks / Hellenes and the supporters of the other theory, make an article that will answer to these arguments. Then we can just stop this idiocy and refer to the ancient Macedonians as Greeks (per the prevalent academic fashion) BUT always and at all times mention this other theory and redirect everybody to it. I am really tired of having to be so careful not to disturb this minority by refraining to mention the prevalent historical point of view or having to persuade others that the other theory should also be mentioned...

As for the "inhabitants" of Classical Antiquity, it is a word that would be clearly wrong since there are inhabitants in a clearly defined SPACE and not time... There can be an inhabitant of a city or country or a house but not one of the medieval times or the 19th century...

GK1973 (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The real Macedonians and the map

A part of Albania and Albanian Macedonians territories including Greek territories where Albanians live belong to the territory of ancient Macedonia please refer to this map ,the name Macedonia is correct if Albanians are representative of former ancient population [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.64.246 (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

??? I make no sense here... Could you please rephrase?

GK1973 (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

About ancient Macedonians

I have reinstsated the phrase "people of ancient Greece". The reason is that first of all Macedonians existed before classical antiquity. The second is that Macedon was part of the ancient Greece and as such Macedonians were people of ancient Greece. The ethnicity of ancient macedonians is stressed extensively in the main text. Further Macedon was part of ancient Greece, and still is part of modern greece, collapsing with the modern greek provice of macedonia. By allowing a grey issue about that is equal to raising issues about the rights of Greece to its northern province and as such to indirectly support irridentitism against the northern greek province which is absolutely no NPOV. So in order to maintain a NPOV we have to maintain the phrase "people of ancient greece".213.249.63.38 (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's really pushing it. Wikipedia is not the vehicle for Greek grudges against the Macedonians to be played out, and many of your statements are not entirely supported by scholarship. "Of classical antiquity" is fine. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 06:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Greek grudges is quite offensive and your point of view are extremely no NPOV. I demand your apology as this is not a place of trolling. Second the issue of ancient Macedonians are completely unrelated to the modern issue. Whether some 2,500 years ago macedonians were an original greek tribe or became hellenised at 5th century BC i cannot see how it is related to the modern slavic ethnic group. The way the whole issue is presented simply supports indirect irridentitism against northern greece. And it is completely no NPOV. I didn t add ancient greek people but people of ancient greece.This is very different. Ancient Macedonians and macedon is an unrelated issue to the greek -ethnic macedonian dispute. I expect some more arguments and not illiterate insults. Thank you. 213.249.63.38 (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at Ancient Macedonian language. The relationship of the Ancient Macedonians and their language to the Greeks of that era is a highly ambiguous one and is not as straightforward as you are making out. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As I said it is related to that. Whether they were a people of pure greek origin or they bacame hellenised and finally absorbed by the greeks 2,500 years ago it is irrelevant. The same for their language. Ethnic Macedonian leadership admited the same : "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That's who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia." From Kiro Gligorov President of Macedonia at Toronto Star newspaper, March 15, 1992 We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century ... we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians." From Kiro Gligorov President of Macedonia at the Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35 The rest of the approaches are no NPOV. Nonetheless I shall not revert it again but instaed I would like to hear some more opinions based on the previous statement as well which is very scholar at the same time.213.249.63.38 (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What is highly ambiguous about the ancient Macedonian language???? Come on people... Again... Thousands of inscriptions have been found all over Macedonia and her dominions that were ascribed to Macedonians. ALL are plain Greek. This "dispute" only arose because of a political agenda. For thousands of years the ONLY dispute was about the exact linguistic attributes of this dialect and NOT about whether it was Greek or not. Even if you support this theory that has the Macedonians use one language orally and another in writing (???), you have to admit that the universally accepted conclusion of the VAST MAJORITY of international universities and academics is that the Macedonians spoke and wrote GREEK. So, when you say "highly disputed", you actually talk of a bery small fragment of the academic community, whose opinion of coursde should be mentioned BUT IN NO CASE can be presented as equally important or equally accepted. As for the issue of the Macedonians being here porteayed as Greeks, well... whether you like it or not, this is what the academic community in almost in its entirety supports. The Macedonian culture and history are all studied under the term Classical GREEK Studies, (Romans are not...).

GK1973 (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And further the discussion concerns a language prior to the adoption of attic greek at the 5th century BC thus 2,500 years ago. Whats the issue here? That suddenly 2,500 years later some slavic youngsters decided to change history and for that we have to be PC and turn our sight from the truth? Because their prudent leadership only 15 years ago were admitng the obvious :

"We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That's who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia." From Kiro Gligorov President of Macedonia at Toronto Star newspaper, March 15, 1992

So what is PC those days? To support a forged irridentitism or stick with facts. Read the relative articles at Britannica and get a slight grip of historical accuracy.Melathron (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Albanian Macedonians to day represent former antic population of Macedonia who spoke the Hellenic doric or epirotic dialect, a thraco-illyrian language from where to day Albanian language originates, but higher classes used the koinne dialect of Atiki. In case that anyone knows that then I am the one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.64.246 (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh, this has gotten ridiculous. Even Dodona (the above IP) chimed in with his wild theories... 3rdAlcove (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

“Wild theories” can be nothing more wild then this claim I do not see anything wild , why is that??--Macedoni from Korca (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Demosthenos and the Macedonians

... not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors...

You know this, right? This is today considered ba Greeks as a political acting. Why isn't, for example, Alexander I of Macedon participation in the Olympics considered as political acting? I'm willing to write something about this :) Bobvo (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? You take your best argument as to the non-Greekness of the Macedonians (actually your only one) and you debase it to absurdity... What do the insults a political enemy of someone have to do with Herodotus's attestation that the Argeads are Greeks as far as he knows, as the Hellanodices also accepted? What political move, especially to a kingdom that was not consideed strong at the time? What you are saying asks for much writing, but it obviously is not your goal. So, if there is any real question as to anything that has to do with the ancient Macedonians, their Greekness or non-Greekness you are welcome to ask. If you only wanted to write about Demosthenes then you did and the meaning of his words are clear to someone who has read Greek literature. Can you answer why Demosthenes only calls his rival a barbarian twice in all his hundreds of lines against him? Why his contemporary Athenian orators, like Aeschines and Isocrates talk about and to the Macedonians and NEVER call them thus or anyway suggest that they are not Hellenes? Why he was accused by ancient Greek historians for slandering Philip and why he was himself accused of being a barbarian by Aeschines? And of course, even if his words should be taken literary (a fact that has been denied by the acadenic community, even by those who do not deem the Macedonians as Greeks), then how should one take the words of your top politicians (President Gligorov, Prime Minister Georgievski or Foreign Minister Malevski), people of far more political weight than orator Demosthenes? Anyways, if you have any serious queations, I will be happy to answer to the best of my knowledge.

GK1973 (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

@the OP troll: Demosthenes is already mentioned in the article. Isocrates who considered Philip a fellow Greek isn't, though...hmm, something should be done about that. 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Makednos

I think there is a slight confusion in the text. The ancient greek tribes are not tracing their origin only through Hellen in the hesiod theogony but through Deucalionids. Do not forget the name greeks come from Graecus a son of Pandora II , a sister of hellen and daughter of deucalion. Henceforth the argument that makednos might be excuded from the greeks should he be concidered a son of hellen 's sister Thya is not a valid one, that why the correction. Melathron (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is correct. I will prepare a detailed answer to this in the next days... now I have to go sunbathing...

GK1973 (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Doric in Macedonia

Yes, 3D Alcove. Except for the Pella katadesmos there are many other inscriptions in Doric although you are right that the majority of the epigraphy is in the (Attic) Koine, since they are dated later than the mid 3rd century BC. Even in that, though, there are many instances of Doric and Aeolic elements like in the conjugation of names. Actually the Pella Katadesmos is not the oldest Doric inscription found in Macedonia. Check for epigraphies found at Elimeia (dated as far back as 500 BC), in Aiane, in Aiges etc and of course there are the Derveni Papyrus, which is the oldest papyrus in Greek ever found (6th century BC, it also has Doric elements in its scripts), as well as at least three other katadesmoi etc. And of course thousands are unclassified Greek, since they are simple names or words that could be given in any Greek dialect. Let us not forget that Dorian or Aeolian are not a different language and share most of their forms and syntaxes with the Attic or the Koine Attic (which is also not the same thing as traditional Attic).

GK1973 (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

source about Macedonian prehistory

they talk about Mycenaean civilization there. see:[7] interesting for some, i guess.150.140.226.157 (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No they actually speak about the presence of Mycenean Pottery which is a totally different thing. LH (Mycenean pottery) has been unearthed throughout the Mediterranean (Sicily, Egypt, Asia Minor etc.) and its presence is not always easy to interpret. There are of course scholars that understand the existence of LH pottery in northern Greece as an indication of permanent Mycenean presence (see what Karamitrou Mentesidi says in footnote 11) but this issue is far from resolved. In recent years evidence of Mycenean presence has been accumulating but the question of its significance remains moot for the time being. BTW the phrase "The excavations have unearthed the oldest pieces of black and white pottery, characteristic of the tribes of northwest Greece, discovered so far" is rather non sensical in archaeological terms. The term "Black and white" pottery is rather generic and has no particular meaning to my knowledge. The local "Mattpainted" (αμαυρόχρωμη) pottery (sometimes imitating LH mycenean prototypes) is what was probably meant, but this type of pottery is still not very well understood and documented. The source provided for this "Black and White pottery" seems to be somekind of popular archaeology documentary that shouldn't really be there after all.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

first of all I didn't say what it means so don't accuse me of so and neither should you cause that would be OR. i just mentioned that generally. of course the archaeologists and historians must have a way of working and deciding whether a culture is Greek or just a culture that had relations with Greeks150.140.225.175 (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You probably miscontrued my response because there was not even a hint of accusation. I simply elaborated on the importance of LH pottery unearthed in Northern Greece.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Better approach

Rather than dealing with whether or not the Macedones were Greek, or not, we should rather acknowledge that the Macedonians were a culturally and linguistically heteregenous nation. Whilst the upper strata were Hellenic, Illyrian culture and language remained in considerable areas of upper Macedonia.

Hxseek (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If we are talking about the Macedonians' origins, we can't legitimately include Upper Macedonia, which was not part of the original Macedonian kingdom. If you can make a distinction between the Greeks and the "Hellenized" Macedonians, one must also be made between the Macedonians and the "Macedonized" inhabitants of the lands they conquered, no? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. We can make that distinction, but this heterogeneity existed almost from the outset, not just after the great expansion, because on their movement frm Orestis into lower Macedonia they subjected Illyrian and Thracian tribes that had previously inhabited lower Macedonia itself. Hxseek (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think such heterogeneity is peculiar to Macedonia; the ancient Greeks as a whole were a rather mixed bunch. What matters is the influence these other peoples had on the culture. Do we have any record of the Illyrian and Thracian impact on Macedonian culture, other than the fact they once lived there? Or is this just another way of trying to say the Macedonians were anything but Greek? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to distort my words. There is sufficient scholarly opinion to include that the Hellenic component was not sole, not only in the ethnogenesis , but throughout the history of the kingdom, even into Roman times. It just deserves a mention in a sentence or two Hxseek (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's already there (Ramsay, Rawlinson and Borza), unless I'm imagining things. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is mentioned. However, the way it is written seems to present the mixed ethnogenesis scenario as an outdated view (being the interpretationon 19th century scholars) whilst 'many' 20th century scholars now agree that they were, in fact, Greek (after the extensive archaeological research). However, even today the discussion in controversial, despite archaeological evidence. Moreoever, the article recites Theuclydes and Heroditus accounts of the Argead supposed descent as fact without at all acknowledging that such descriptions could have had propaganda purposes and been used as political ploys by the Argeads themselves. The same could apply to the use f Greek language and some customs - to better economic and trade relationships, etc

I think it is worth mentioning the proposed movement of Macedones from Orestis to lower Macedonia, is it not ? Perhaps better suited for the Macedon article, we should mention that, whilst certainly Greek was the koine language, people in such empires were multi-lingual and of mixed ancestry. Other languages were also spoken beside Greek Hxseek (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR, anyone? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

In the first millennium BC, the mountainous area of Orestis, near present-day Kastoria, and the valley of the Heliacmon river, were settled by a people called the Macedons. About 700BC, this clan had migrated eastward from Orestis looking for arable land. Lower Macedonia was ruled by Macedonian chiefs who subjugated or expelled the earlier Illyrian and Thracian inhabitants, while upper Macedonia was ruled by independent tribes. ....While it’s reasonable to argue that the original Macedones who emerged in Emanthia in the 8th century were a homogeneous group, this is not true of the great Macedon kingdom at the time of Alexander the Great. A great majority of the Kingdom was not Macedonian, but Illyrian and Thracian. There were many different tribes that Phillip II welded together to form the Macedon nation. This mixture of people, few of who were unequivocally Greek, makes suspect any claim of Greek ethnic continuity in Aegean Macedonia

''The point here is whatever the ethnic and language character of the small group of original Macedones, there was a complicated mixture of peoples at the time of Macedonia’s greatness. However, We should note that Orestis, the place from which the Macedonians came to their new lowland home, remained essentially Illyrian in culture and language. We might wonder if this is a clue to the ethnicity of the Macedonians themselves.

The Greek towns showed even stronger resistance to being ethnically and culturally absorbed by Macedonians (than the Illyrians, etc). Wallbank says that the Greeks living in Macedonia only sometimes called themselves Macedonians. These town had once been independent, but had been forcibly absorbed into Macedon. However, since the fifth century when the Macedonian kings invented a family connection with Greek mythical heroes and adopted a philhellenic policy, towns such as Borea, Pella, Edessa, on the Hellenic model had existed in Macedonia. In general they were loyal to the rulers of Macedon, and on special occasions they even called themselves Macedonians . Nevertheless the essentially Greek nature of these town persisted. It is worth noting the distinction Wallbank makes between Greek culture within the borders of Macedonia and Macedonian culture. Clearly they were different. Hellenes were recognised as different from Macedonians.

The mixed nature resulting from this combination was evident in local interests and cultures. Historian Tom Winnifrith even says it is very likely that even at the time of the Roman conquest, two hundred years after Alexander the Great, quite a high proportion of the wilder districts of both Macedonia and Epirus were still speaking a non-Greek language. In describing the people of the areas, Strabo talked of bilingual barbarians. Greek was the language of government and administration of Macedonia.. . The presence of the official language says nothing at all about what language was used in private, in the family context for example. People tended to be at least bilingual, speaking both the official language (Greek or Latin) as well as their own language. The first language was their own vernacular, probably Illyrian in the north and westm and Thracian in the east. This kind of bilingualism continued throughout the next two thousand years as one ruling power was replaced by another.

From Greece and Macedonia. The Struggle to Define a new Balkan Nation. By John Shea.

So. No. Not OR.

There is no need to minimize the Greekness of Macedones, so don;t worry. I know how defensive you are. We just have to tell it like it is, and state that not everyone today, even after all this "extensive" research, agrees on the issue. We have to present it such and let the reader get all views- not the opinion held by certain editors

Hxseek (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... That John Shea... but he is a psychologist, not a historian. As I remember, he is married to a Macedonian-Australian. In 1992, he wrote a book called: The Real Macedonians (Publisher: Macedonian Australian Human Rights Association, Newcastle, ISBN 0 646 10504 3). In the introduction to that first book he stated "I began the process of discovery from a state of quite profound ignorance". The Cat and the Owl (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, read carefully what he writes in his introduction of page 3:

"Probably everyone has heard the idea that the use of the name Macedonia by the Macedonians is a threat to Greece because it shows the expansionist ambitions of the Macedonians. Usually this idea is presented alongside the view that the name Macedonia is Greek in any case and should be reserved for Greek use. However the Greek claims go far beyond these assertions. This book presents ideas that contradict the Greek claims. In essence this book presents the counter-charge that the (formerly Yugoslav) Macedonians have a better claim to the name and the history of Macedonia than the Greeks in general, and even the northern Greeks who live in the lands that more than two thousand years ago formed the heartlands of the great Macedonian Empire. This might seem like an extraordinary position to take, given public perceptions about the issues. Such public perceptions stand as testimony to the effectiveness of the Greek presentation of their argument. However it is now my view that an alternative argument can be made convincingly. At the very least this indicates that the issues are not black and white. It also tells us some very important things about Greek nationalism and its possible role in shaping Balkan affairs."

Conclusion: Psychologist John Shea does not claim to be unbiased. In fact he indirectly admits he is biased against Greek position and naturally he adopts 100% FYROM's stance over the issue. Since the author himself, admits of being biased against a granted position (Greek), his further claims afterwards about "objectivity" in reference to facts are completely ludicrous, if not fatuous...The Cat and the Owl (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets analyse his falsifications further:

"It is often said that Alexander the Great was at least half Greek because whatever ethnicity characterized his father, his mother, Olympia, was Greek. She was a Molossian from Epirus, a group that some historians have believed was Greek by language and culture. However, authoritative writers have explained the ethnic make-up of the Molossians as they do that of the Macedonians: the upper classes adopted Greek ways and the Greek language, but were not Greek by birth. Relying on the writings of Strabo from Roman times to form this judgment, R.A. Crossland raises doubts about this supposed Greek ethnicity, noting the strong presence of Illyrians in Epirus. Although Greek was well established in the region, he says it may simply have been used by the leading families. Crossland says that even the existence of inscriptions in Greek around 370 B.C. does not prove that Greek was the original native language of the Molossians since the concept "Epirotic" may go back only to the fourth century B.C. and be basically geographic. Furthermore, Crossland points out that the Greek writer Thucydides described a neighboring group, the Chaones, as barbaroi though their leaders from the ruling family had Greek names. Similarly, he classed the Thesproti, the Molossi, the Parauaei and the Atintanes as barbarian by associating them with the Chaones and not listing them among the Hellenes. If the Molossi and other Epirotic groups were not really of Greek ethnicity, then Alexander's mother, a Molossian, was probably not of Greek ancestry. Thus, neither Alexander's mother nor his father was Greek." (The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation, by John Shea)

Contrary to Shea's allegations actual historians have described ancient Epirotes as being Greeks:

"Speakers of these various Greek dialects settled different parts of Greece at different times during the Middle Bronze Age, with one group, the "northwest" Greeks, developing their own dialect and peopling central Epirus. This was the origin of the Molossian or Epirotic tribes." E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 62

"As subjects of the king the Upper Macedonians were henceforth on the same footing as the original Macedonians, in that they could qualify for service in the King's Forces and thereby obtain the elite citizenship. At one bound the territory, the population and wealth of the kingdom were doubled. Moreover since the great majority of the new subjects were speakers of the West Greek dialect, the enlarged army was Greek-speaking throughout." NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Gerald Duckword & Ltd, London, 1994

"Epirus was a land of milk and animal products...The social unit was a small tribe, consisting of several nomadic or semi-nomadic groups, and these tribes, of which more than seventy names are known, coalesced into large tribal coalitions, three in number: Thesprotians, Molossians and Chaonians...We know from the discovery of inscriptions that these tribes were speaking the Greek language (in a West-Greek dialect)." NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Duckworth, London, 1994

"The West Greek dialect group denotes the dialects spoken in: (i) the northwest Greek regions of Epeiros, Akarnania, Pthiotid Akhaia...." Johnathan M. Hall, "Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity", Cambridge University Press, 1997

I could keep posting quotes, but I think you got the message: Yes, WP:OR. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My point is not about the Epirotians. Whatever his credentials, Shea quotes other historians. Granted that the majority of historians view that the Macedonians were Greek, or related in some way, not everyone agrees. That is evident. However, my arguement is not about the origins of Macedonians, anyway. It is about the heterogeneous nature of the kingdom almost from the outset. This has not been addressed in the article. Of course, the focus should be not lie on this, but it is mention worthy . Hxseek (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

But Shea doesn't say anything about the "heterogeneous nature of the kingdom almost from the outset". In fact, he says quite the opposite: Lower Macedonia was ruled by Macedonian chiefs who subjugated or expelled the earlier Illyrian and Thracian inhabitants, while upper Macedonia was ruled by independent tribes. ....While it’s reasonable to argue that the original Macedones who emerged in Emanthia [sic] in the 8th century were a homogeneous group, this is not true of the great Macedon kingdom at the time of Alexander the Great. No shit. A great majority of the kingdom was not Thraco-Illyrian either; it was Persian, Bactrian, Indo-Aryan and whatever else. Alexander the outset of the kingdom? I always thought he appeared towards the end. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to Macedonia itself, ie upper Macedonia. This was part of Macedonia proper before Alexander's expansion. Not India ! Hxseek (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

To end with it: Shea is not a reliable source since he is not a historian but a psychologist who -moreover- admits he is biased! Hxseek, provide reliable sources about the "heterogeneous nature of the kingdom almost from the outset" and then let's talk about it again. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with mentioning the peoples conquered by the Macedonians, but to say that this kingdom was heterogeneous from the beginning is misleading, especially when the source you cite says the opposite. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean prior to the expansion into Asia. The areas also included as part of Macedonia included non-Hellenic elements and these people were themselves Macedonians.

I am not familiar with the source used for the abovementioned map, but refer to this [8] and this [9] Note: Macedonia is depicted seperate to (other) Greek states Hxseek (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Were they really Macedonians, or just conquered by them? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That depends on definition. Politically, territorially, yes. Also no, in the sense that they weren't the Argead's original 'clan'. As a comparison, were the Greeks of the Anatolian coast, or lower Thrace really Greeks ? Hxseek (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

They certainly were, but does that mean the Thracians, Phrygians and Lydians were too? That's what we're talking about here. I have no doubt that many of the conquered peoples were eventually assimilated into the common Greek culture sponsored by the Macedonians, but that doesn't make the language, culture or identity they adopted any less Macedonian or Greek. Interestingly, Shea himself admits that the Macedonians "subjugated or expelled" the "earlier Illyrian and Thracian inhabitants" of lower Macedonia. If that is the case, your claim that they were some kind of co-founders of the Macedonian kingdom is simply false. Furthermore, there is evidence that peoples such as the Paionians retained their distinct identity even under Macedonian rule. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Valid point, Kekrops. I shall continue my investigations. I will let you rest, but as a last note, I reiterate: there are some views that the Macedonians were possibly of mixed origins, or even hellenized Illyrians. This is mentioned, which is fine, and the weight of evidence supports that they were Hellens. All good. However, the last point doesn't disprove what I am saying. Macedonia was a multi-layered society with Hellenic (aspiring) noble family with many non-Hellenic elements within Macedonia itself. That other people kept their non-Hellenic identity doesn't mean they were not Macedonian Hxseek (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Why non-Hellenic but not non-Macedonian? If they were Illyrian as you say, they obviously weren't Macedonian either, except in the sense of having been subjugated by the Macedonians. I guess it all depends, as ever, on one's definition of Macedonian. I don't see how the subjugation by the Macedonians of foreign peoples equates to your assertion that it was only the ruling élite that merely aspired to be Greek. They are rather separate matters. There was clearly a relatively homogeneous core of tribal Macedonians who were descended from the original founders of Macedon, and they were clearly distinguished even from the other Greeks who lived in Macedonia. If they were nothing but Grecomans, to use a term popular among your people, would they not have rejected any such distinction? In fact, the evidence suggests that the Macedonians were always distinct from, and socially superior to, the other inhabitants of the kingdom, whether non-Macedonian Greeks, Paionians, Illyrians, Thracians, etc.

I understand your desire to mitigate the Greekness of the Macedonians, but does it really make you feel closer to them, and if so, how? The Albanians claim Illyrian ancestry; perhaps Macedon was an Albanian kingdom after all? Where's Dodona when you need him? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol! The Cat and the Owl (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Greek is fine with me. LOL. Its not about me feeling closer to them. you appear focussed on outlining my desire to 'mitigate' the Greekness of Macedonians, which is not the case. Rather I am examining the complete picture, from a learned approach understanding that we cannot apply rigid, modern day, understanding of ethnicity to bygone eras.

Kekrops as for If they were Illyrian as you say, they obviously weren't Macedonian either, except in the sense of having been subjugated by the Macedonians. That's incorrect. The Illyrians were not all united political body, but a linguistic category. There is no contradiction to say that Macedonians had Illyrian elements. And are we not going to mention that they migrated from the region of Orestis into lower Macedonia. Currently, all there is the mythical origins Hxseek (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol was for "Where's Dodona when you need him?"... The Cat and the Owl (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You extol the heterogeneity of the ancient Macedonians, but when it comes to the modern era you restrict your definition of "Macedonian" to only one of the ethnic groups inhabiting Macedonia. The irony. Anywho, you'll have to cite some damn good sources if you want your hypothesis to stand. We have plenty of evidence that the Illyrians were enemies of the Macedonians, but not much about their alleged role in the formation of the Macedonian kingdom. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In reply to your first point, Kekrops, you're incorrect. I haven't written material on articles citing opinions, or references, etc, supporting that only people from RoM are Macedonians. As for your second pont: "The Illyrians were enemies of Macedon". Not all Illyrians were enemies of the Macedonians. There were over 50 tribes in the Balkans generically referred to as 'Illyrians', which includes 20 or so in the regions of northern Epirus, Macedonia, lower Dalmatia, lower Thrace. There was a wide and fluctuant zone of contact between western Thracian groups, Hellenes, the southern ('proper' Illyrians), and the Paenoes (and Dardanians fruther north)- the latter two are probably of mixed origin. Politicially, there was an Illyrian kingdom which had wars with Macedonia. But this only included a few Illyrian groups, certainly not all, and was a subsequent development to the actual ethnogenesis of the various ethno-political groups in the region. Moreoever, from what we have seen, the dominant hellenic culture seen in Macedonia does not mean that others were not there. Yes, there is nothing hard to show for it, other than the (plausible) theories of some scholars supporting a mixed origin. The situation was similar in Pannonia. The Pannonian tribes were virtually completely Celticized, showing typical Hallstat finds. Even the pre-Celtic place names no longer exist after the 4th century Hxseek (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I added referenced info on the issue. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I never said they weren't there; I'm merely disputing your thesis that they were considered Macedonians, or even equal to the Macedonians. I find it hard to believe that the non-Hellenic groups were of a higher status than the (non-Macedonian) Greeks, for example. What we need is less Shea-style partisan sources and a bit more serious scholarship. We could expand on Borza's thesis, if you feel your side is being vilified by the association of the Thraco-Illyrian theory with outdated nineteenth-century scholarship. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

K, why do you need to keep distorting what I'm saying (please show where I wrote that non-Hellenes were of a "higher status" than Greeks), and worse, politicising the issue by writing comments like the one above ? There is no need for it. Anyway, I don't think there is need to expand after CandO's little addition, that's all we needed. I agree that shea isn't the best source Hxseek (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

By implication, if we accept your thesis that the non-Hellenes were Macedonians but the "Greeks" weren't. That is what you're saying, right? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 03:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Where are you obtaining these bizarre interpretations ? Hxseek (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hxseek's edits

I reverted Hxseek's edits per WP:OR, because Stipcevic's comment doesn't really give anything to the article and Peter J. Heather's passage given by Hxseek has nothing to do with Ancient Macedonians, see here. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Stipcevic is a specialist Illyrianologist who states that Macedonians are Hellenized Illyrians, and makes the important point that cultural and linguistic 'territories' varied and swayed, especially in a region like Macedonia. Therefore, development of an ethnic identity is a dynamic process; whereby multiple influences, contacts and movements shape a people. Layer upon layer is added which ultimately shapes a peoples.

The final paragraph of the 'origins' section states that many scholars now see that Ancient Macedonians were Greek. Yet, some Greek Wiki editors unfortunately do not allow the flip side to be stated, that is, others do not, and dismiss any scholars opinion which is contrary to their own as "non-expert". One does not have to intentionally look for anti-Greek view on the issue to recognise that the issue remains controversial and no theory is universally accepted, despite these miraculous finds in 1983 of greek writing in Upper Macedonia, which actually don't prove anything convincingly. Even if we acknowledge that the view that the macedonians were Greek is the view of most scholars, there is a considerable body of historians who think they were mixed or even originally non-Greek. Whatever, the case, the issue is still contentious amongst historians. This needs to be outlined Hxseek (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any physical evidence that runs counter to the archaeological discoveries that have generally proven the ancient Macedonians to have been either Greeks or proto-Greeks? If we assume that the Macedonians were "Illyrians" (or part of the ill-defined "Illyrian" tribal family), then what concrete evidence is there to substantiate such a claim? I doubt archaeologists have discovered any form of material evidence compelling enough for them to associate the ancient Macedonians with the "Illyrians" of, say, the Hallstatt culture. If we also assume that the Macedonians were Thracians or members of the "Thraco-Illyrian" tribal family, then where are the supposed Thracian and/or Thraco-Illyrian settlements that would indicate the existence of a potential pre-Greek or non-Greek presence prior to Macedon's Atticization? So far, archaeologists have studied and re-studied the material evidence and have almost unanimously concluded that the ancient Macedonians were of either Greek stock or proto-Greek stock. That they happen to geographically exist in a geopolitical "wedge" between the Illyrians and the Thracians is the main reason why some scholars are intent on promoting "mixed" theories. Of course, what do I know? Deucalionite (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the Hallstat culture is not the archaeological hallmark of Illyrians. Secondly, I am not saying Macedonians were Illyrians per se, but may have been partly so. How do scholars know that the region was firstly inhabited by Thracians, then Illyrians, if we have no proof ? It is no secrete that the Greek expansion occurred from farther south, although the Dorians were initially in western Macedonia. It is highly unilikely that there was a quarantine perimeter b/w greek and non-greek peoples. Macedonia was a very mixed zone, like today, with the Greeks being predominantly in the south of the region. It is highly likely that some of the Macedonian petty-kingdoms were non-greek, although the Argeads considered themselves Greek. The presence of Greek artefacts, pottery, writing, etc does not prove against the existence of other elements. Being the dominant culture of the region, one would expect to see Greek cultural artefacts at some distances form the Greek 'ethnic zone'. Isn't this common sense ?

One does not have too look far to read in history books which state the issue of the Macedonians origins is controversial. I know my 'general', 'non-expert' sources are inferior to all your so-called 'expert' sources, but i'm afraid there is a marked discrepency between what is presented in published books to what is portrayed here in Wikiedia. Yes, the majority may simply see them as Greek, but others do not. Are we going to gloss over this fact ?

Hxseek (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

First, "common sense" is a psychological fallacy and hardly serves as a substitute for hard evidence. Second, the Halstatt culture is as much a part of the ill-defined "Illyrians" as any of the other cultures that exist within the same artificially created tribal family. Had archaeologists discovered either "Illyrian" (Halstatt/non-Halstatt) or Thracian settlements within the tribal corpus of early "Macedonian petty-kingdoms", then you could make a case against the so-called "Greco-Barbarian Quarantine Theory". To state, however, that some scholars subscribe to "mixed" theories on the assumption that Greek artifacts were used by "Illyrians" and Thracians during a very early stage in Macedon's socio-cultural development would require evidence of hybrid cultures. If anything, the "Illyrians" and Thracians were almost constantly at war with Macedon. What reason would these tribal groups have to adopt "Macedonian Hellenism" with the Illyrians conducting constant raids and the Thracians possessing kinship ties with Macedon's competitor, Athens? "Common sense" or not, but realpolitik figures that what your saying just doesn't add up. Deucalionite (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Err, no. Hallstat culture is limited to extreme northwest of Illyricum. Political animosities do little to stop cultural flows. When sources speak of wars between Macedon and the Illyrians, it actually refers to individual tribes from southern Illyria raiding Macedonian territory (or what have you), whilst others were pro-Macedonian. It wasn't a large scale 'ethnic' war - Ilyrians vs Greeks. Highlighting that Macedonians and Illyrians fought wars , and therfore are mortal enemies , precluding any contact (which would have occurred prior to these battles, anyway - pre 500 BC) is a weak arguement Hxseek (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I never implied that the Halstatt culture was prominent. I was trying to explain the fact that its supposed "Illyrianness" cannot be disputed (for now) since the "Illyrian" tribal family is ill-defined to the point where historians and scholars have accepted their erroneous lumping of the "Halstatts" with other "Illyrian" cultural groups. So, if there is evidence of an Illyrian presence in proto-Macedonian or early Macedonian society, then archaeologists should be looking for indicators (including signs of a Halstatt presence even if chances of finding such material evidence is extremely small since, like you said, the Halstatt culture is limited to northwestern Illyricum). As for the "Illyrian-Macedonian Wars", political animosities did influence cultural flows regardless if some of the Illyrian tribes were pro-Macedonian. Yes, contact would have to have been established prior to these altercations, but political tensions were hardly non-existent regardless if one measures the impact of a specific cultural flow(s) to be significant. Ultimately, we're looking at a series of "kinship wars" (small and large). The Macedonians did not have deep kinship ties with either the Illyrians or the Thracians for them to acknowledge the "cultural flows" they supposedly received from both disunited tribal groups. The southern Thracian tribes had deep kinship ties with the Athenians to which the latter used as a form of political leverage against the Macedonians. The geopolitical and cultural dynamics of classical antiquity are not easily classified as broad types of "ethnic wars" (even though the Greeks were conscious of their own unique sense of ethnicity). Speculation aside, archaeologists would still have to find within the ancient geopolitical borders of Macedon evidence of an archaic Illyrian and/or Thracian presence. Deucalionite (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That's always been my issue with the Thraco-Illyrian theory. Where is the evidence? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You hit the nail right on the head Kekrops. It's not that Hxseek doesn't present intelligent arguments. However, the article cannot be altered significantly if there is no physical proof to substantiate the so-called "Thraco-Illyrian Theory". Deucalionite (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative theories should be mentioned insofar as they are supported by serious scholars. However, I have yet to see the evidence these theories are based on. Perhaps Hxseek can enlighten us. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur. But knowing Hxseek, I'm sure he'll provide something. If not, then we can safely regard the "Thraco-Illyrian Theory" as merely an unsubstantive alternative hypothesis. Deucalionite (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

At present I am working on other projects, leaving me no time to actively search for archaeological appraisals of early Macedonian material. However, since we know that Macedonia was actually firstly inhabited by Thracian peoples (ie the Bryges), then illyrians, I'm sure some evidence exists. Do we not know that there was peaceful co-existence between the Bryges and Macedones. When the Macedonians expanded their rule, they absorbed these other people. If the Macedonians were an archaic Greek tribe (with a culture which was rather distant to greece proper), other elements also existed. Afterall, when one ethnos invades another, contrary to what some beleive, the other is not exterminated, but merely subjegated and eventually absorbed. I find it hard to believe that the Macedonians ethnically cleansed Macedonia of other ethnic elements (thracians, illyrians). Yes, the archaeological record, at present might is scarce in support of a mixed-origin scenario. This could be due to several reasons. When one culture is dominant, it naturally appears ubiquitous. Secondly, the pervasiveness of 'Hellenic' material evidence does not prove against the existence of non-Hellenic peoples. Afterall, material cultures do not necessarily equate with the ethnic origins of the peoples residing within that cultural zone. Thirdly, archaeological discoveries might be skewed by what the archaeologists themselves wish to discover. Hxseek (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"I'm sure some evidence exists." In other words, there is no evidence, just speculation. Got it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is evidence. The fact that historians agree that a large part of Macedonia (even lower Macedonia) was inhabited by Thracians and Illyrians prior to the 5th or 6th century isn't a wimsical concoction out of thin air. The obvious slanted stance of the article is only thinly veiled by the superficially 'academic' manner it is presenented. Information is selectively presented to present a particular point of view, such as quotes from ancient historians, without commenting on the often dubious reliablity of these historians who only used their narrative to fulfil their contemporary political agendas. Not to mention the use of antiquated ideas of ethnogenesis, the "Dorian invasion", and an anachronistic representation of what it meant to be Greek in the 5th century B.C. No mentioning of the fact that it may have only been the ruling family which had, or claimed to have, a Greek origin.

If we want to understand and celebrate the glory of the Macedones, one has to be willing to explore the variable number of interpretations as presented by reputable sources; not to present the article as if the matter is a forgone conclusion. Hxseek (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's good that you are questioning literary sources. But we still need hard proof to indicate that Macedon was inhabited by Thracians and Illyrians prior to the Mycenean period. The only thing going for the Thraco-Illyrian hypothesis is the fact that Thracians and Illyrians were living in Macedon when its borders expanded into Thracian and Illyrian territories (i.e. empire). Deucalionite (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose a warning in similar pages

"This page is related to the heated topic in modern times referenced in "macedonian naming dispute". It is likely that edit wars about the origin of anything Macedonian is taking place". Because wikipedia shouldn't pretend edit wars about ancient times related articles aren't directly and probably solely related to the modern dispute. Leladax (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would not agree with 'solely' , at all Hxseek (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

sources needed

"nearly all of them advocate that the ancient Macedonians were of Greek origin" does not have a source Mactruth (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

At present, the discussions focus on a primordialistic (and therefore an outdated and simplistic) approach to ethnicity. Debating about whether they were "Greek" or something else (whatever such terms may have actually meant in the 5th century BC) is futile and artificial. Continuing from above discussions, I have seen that archaeological evidence does exist that Macedonia was first inhabited by Thracian and Illyrian tribes, and that there is no reference to Macedonians before the 5th century. Herodotis speaks of them, prior to their migration, as Temenids. This clan, perhaphs Greek -speaking, then migrated into Macedonia from the slopes of mount Olympus, and slowly established political supremacy over neighbouring, non-Greek tribes. There was no expulsion or extermination - genocide is a modern concept. So by a process of ethnogenesis, we can see how the Macedonians were formed, as a heterogeneous ethno-political unit. Naturally, Greek language was then spread primarily by means of cultural contacts to much of Macedonia, but certainly not all. The cultural contrasts between Macedonia and Greece remained visible to all ancient historians. Therefore, to classify their origins as "Greek" is clearly simplistic and chauvanistic. Hxseek (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It is really funny how you choose to use sources... Herodot speaks of the Macedonians as being pure Hellenic. He stresses that they migrated to what was later called Macedonia from the South, how a branch of them later moved south and was called Dorian, AFTER it had entered the Peloponnese, how it (the Macedonians) taught the Pelasgian Athenians the HELLENIC language... This is what Herodot relates, whether you like it or not. So, should you choose to use him as a source, you have no option than to accept his story, a story that was never disputed, as far as the origin of the Macedonians was concerned in the ancient times. As far as other inhabitabts of what you call Macedonia are concerned, of course they have been of multiple and different origins, tribes, ethnicities etc, but first you really should define Macedonia, since at this time, Macedonia is just a fraction of what is today called "Region of Macedonia". Of course, among the inhabitabts, especially BEFORE the Macedonian migration from the South there were Thracian, Illyrian, Pelasgian or even more diverse tribes, as was the case all over, not just the Balcans, but the world... No ancient Greek ever denied that BEFORE the Macedonians, the same lands that were later occupied by the Argeads were occupied by non-Hellenic tribes (whatever they might have been) like the Bryges... The same applies to Magna Graecia, where the Greeks ousted or assimilated the indigenous populations, as well as in the Ionian coast. Again, regardless your individual beliefs, archaeology has not disproven any claims of the ancients. All archaeological evidence from the MACEDONIAN civilization, not from NON-MACEDONIAN civilizations which existed prior or parallel to them, point to a Greek civilization. As far as the spread of the Greek language is concerned, I find it very interesting that you seem to deem it almost self explanatory, although, you give no reason as to why NO non-Hellenic tribe of the day adopted it. Why do you find it so logical, that from ALL tribes that inhabited the area, it was ONLY the Macedonians who spoke and wrote Greek? If the Greek culture was sooo pervasive, why didn't it also conquer the Triballi, the Agrianes, the Paeonians, the Odrysses and all the other non-Macedonian, non-Hellenic tribes? Your assumptions are based on absolutely no evidence, while at the same time you try to both disprove ALL ancient writers, historians and politicians (except maybe Demosthenes...) while at the same time using them to support various other claims by quoting them out of context. I am really sorry, but there is a reason why even E. Borza has NOT denied the possibility that Macedonians were Greek as you do. Anyways...when the international academies catch up with your various proposals and decide to revise history, then we will be able to talk on a different basis. Until then, please, keep us informed on what the archaeological teams of your country unearth, as long as it has to do with the Macedonians and NOT with any tribe which happened to live upon Macedonian soil, especially as you now define it...

GK1973 (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstood my points. I have not been "selective" in my sources, in fact, it is your compratriots who have been selective in the sourcing. They disregard any source which raises doubts about the Hellenic character of the Macedonians as "generalist" or "non-expert", see above discussions. One might interpret this as a biasing of sources, although I do understand and acknowledge that the majority of scholars do in fact agree that the Ancient Macedonians were Greek, or at least, Greek speaking. This is not what I have been debating against.

The greek element in is indisputable in the origins of the A.Ms. Whether their tale from Argos is a metaphor, a semi-legendary account, or whatever, it is likely to signify the intrusive Greek element into Macedonia, then known as Emanthia. You say that no Greek denies that Macedonia was originally Thracian or Illyrian territory, yet if you again refer above, you well note that other users even deny this (eg see Deucalionite's comment, who if anything, is a very learned and rather 'moderate' user).

My point is that the Greek element introduced into Macedonia was a model of 'elite dominance', whereby Greek speakers from south imposed themselves and their language on the territory and its inhabitants. It was upon this movement and subsequent assimilation of peoples that the Macedonians begin as a people. To simply speak of them as Greek, or not, is simplistic and wrong. It denies the complexities involved in how a people begin. They were a mixed people which became increasingly Atticised, now doubt in part due to the political ploys of the Argeads themselves. Was it not only the Royal Family which were admitted to the Olympic games, and not other Macedonians ?

In addition, you would be wrong to claim that this process did not apply to other tribes. Although also disputed, some also argue that the so-called Epirotians (Chaionians, Mollosians) are Hellenized Illyrians. Even the Paenes and Thracians, which are obviously non-Hellenic, became largely Hellenized by the end of antiquity.

And yes, I do suspect that established and reputable scholars still need to catch up with modern thinking about ethnicity ! The old Kossinian approach to archaelogy and the concept of Volk is hard to shake off, no matter how many current social anthropologists have argued against such outdated assumptions

I leave with this quote Names of people may seem familiar after a thousand years, but the social, cultural and political realities covered by these names were radically different from what they are today. The real history of the nations of Europe begins in the 18th century. This is not deny that, in the past, people had notions of collective identity.

To summarise:

Macedonia was initially setllted by Thracians and Ilyrian groups. This is evidenced not only by the ancients’ writings who called the lands around the Axius, the Thermic Gulf, and the HEART of the future Kingdom of Macedon as Thrace . Eg Strabo ‘’Wat is now Macedonia was called in earlier times Emanthia. This territory was held by certain of the Epirotes and Illyrians,, but most of it by Bottiaeans and Thracians. The Bottiaeans, they say, were from Crete by descent (sic) and of the Thracians the Pieres occupied Piera and the area by Olympus, the Paeones that by the Axius .. the Edoni and the Bisaltae the rest of the land up to the Strymon’’ (Strabo, VII, fr. II). As for the Illyrians: ‘’the archaeological evidence is clear at Verginia and in the lower Vardar valley, they were in control from some time in the 8th century BC to c. 650 BC”. Illyrian features typical of the Glasinac culture. Similarly, evidence of Thracian remains are also abundant.

Back to Strabo: he records the expansion of Macedonians not as "Macedonians” but as ‘the so-called Argeadae’. The author suggests that the homeland of the Macedones was in the mountainous area of the Olympic mountain and the Heliacmon beneath. Theucydides account (Th. II. 99) describes their expansion into the lands of their neighbours. Both Thucydides and Herodous agree that the expansion of what later became known as the Macedones was associated with a royal house, the Temenidae of Argos in the Peloponesse (clearly Greek). Yet, the lifestyle of the Macedones was one of semi-pastoralism (akin to Vlachs), different to most Greeks. Similalry, they organized themselves into ethne – clusters of small tribes- just like the non-Greek Illyrians. In turn, the Macedonian ethne was sub-composed of Orestae, Molossoi, Perrhaebi, Lycentsae and the ‘Argaeadae’, amongst others. With the possible exception of the Mollosoi, it was only the Argaedae who claimed Greek descent. And it was only the Argaedae who participated in the Olympic games. Herodotus writes that Alexander was accepted not as a Macedonnian, but as a Temenid from Argos.

The Macedonian ruling house spoke Greek and had Greek names, but “to speak Greek was not to be Greek in the 6th and 5th centuries, that was a matter of culture”. Hence until later, the Macedonians were considered non-Greek barbarians in early times. Clearly they had different customs, lifestyle and political organization to the rest of Greece.

Notwithstanding, the archaeological record is clear that Macedonia was Hellenized after the 5th century. Yet this Hellenization should not be thought of as a mass migration of “Greeks” from farther south, expelling non-Greeks. Rather “Archaeologists today are much more inclined to think in terms of models of interactions. Such (sic) interactions were probably responsible for the development of the networks of contacts which facilitated the creation of similar customs”. That is, the spread of a new archaeological culture need not require the implication that anyone actually moved; given that the cohesion to a material culture by certain groups might signify the acquisition of a new, higher level of identity. This is not to deny that there wasn;t some, small-scale migrations, eg of some kind of warrior-pastoralists. Herodotus and others’ semi-legendary accounts of the Argaeaeds might well be true. However, it more accurately suggests the movement of a small, new dominant clan imposing itself on other, obviously already mixed peoples. The disappearance of the previous Illyrian and Thracian cultures does not mean that those people also disappeared, but had merely adopted, or were eclipsed by, the new dominant group of the region which aspired a Hellenic cultural identity.

Thus it would be wrong to think of the Macedonians as a pre-formed people which existed in the depths of pre-history, an as yet unnoticed Greek people, biding their time. This is why there is no mention of Macedonians before 6th century BC. Clearly their origins are traced to the ascendency of a ruling group, or clan, which asserted authority over new peoples c. 6th century BC. Although the Teminids were Greek, the Macedonians were a mixed peoples.

Hxseek (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made some edits in accordace to the discussion, refferences and the common sence. Jingby (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to ask for forgiveness regarding the length of my answer, but I truly believe it is due. So, let's see your points...

1. At present, the discussions focus on a primordialistic (and therefore an outdated and simplistic) approach to ethnicity. Debating about whether they were "Greek" or something else (whatever such terms may have actually meant in the 5th century BC) is futile and artificial.

First you say there is no point in debating whether the ancient Macedonians were of Greek stock or not. It is wrong to bring in primordialism into the discussion, since the question here is not whether today's Balkan nations have anything to do with the ancients but whether THESE ancients identified themselves as Greeks. There is absolutely no simplicity involved in categorizing this people as a Greek (or any other) tribe, according to archaeological and literary evidence. The term "Hellenas: was not artificial in the 5th century BC, as you seem to claim.

2. archaeological evidence does exist that Macedonia was first inhabited by Thracian and Illyrian tribes, and that there is no reference to Macedonians before the 5th century

As I pointed out, first you do not define the geographical Macedonia you are speaking of... In order to be able to examine where any evidence has been found, we have to know the extents of this where... So, are you talking about Illyrian or Thracian presence around Bitola, around Pella, around Dion, in Chalkidike or maybe around the Strymon? All these places have been called Macedonia, although in and before the 5ht century things were different. As for the presence of the Macedonians before the 5th century and references thereof, I can only assume you are talking about the literary evidence, which happens to start at this period. So in that context we have no reference of any Spartans before that... Yet, all ancient writers place the starting point of the Macedonian existence in a much older time, first as a Hellenic tribe which migrated north and then again south to cause the Dorian Invasion and then as the Temenids and their followers, who lived among the Bryges, a tribe, which does not seem to belong either to the Illyrian or to the Thracian group, a people which later migrated into Asia, probably as a result of a non-peaceful reality.

3. Herodotis speaks of them, prior to their migration, as Temenids. This clan, perhaphs Greek -speaking, then migrated into Macedonia from the slopes of mount Olympus, and slowly established political supremacy over neighbouring, non-Greek tribes.

Herodot does not call the Macedonians "Temenids" prior to their migration north. He calls them "Makednous". He does NOT say that PERHAPS they were Greek speaking. He says that they WERE Greek speaking and goes on to relate how THEY HELLENIZED the Athenians. He also, does not say anything about them extending their supremacy over other neighboring Greek or non Greek tribes. This is why I said that you misquote Herodot. You seem to mix this up with Herodot's account of the descendance of Alexander I, when he relates of how the sons of Temenos fled to an unnamed Macedonian king from Argos, there forming their own kingdom. So, according to Herodot, the Macedonians were Hellenes, they were the same people later called Dorian and Lacedaemonian and they were the ones who brought the Athenians into the Hellenic world (as incredible as it might sound to some, this is what Herodot claims. Of course then, another huge discussion can be initiated as to whether the Pelasgians could be considered Greek or pre-Greek etc, but this is another question). According to Herodot, the Temenids were Hellenes from Argos, who ruled over Macedonians, definitely calling them also Hellenes, but under no circumstances saying that only the Argeads / Temenids were Macedonians. In conclusion, Herodot clearly defines the Macedonians as Hellenes and places the beginning of their existence before the invasion of the Dorians into the Peloponnese. The second story is about the Argead House alone and has a value of its own, since they are actually what all this irrational debate (not between me and you, but in a political sense) is about.

4. There was no expulsion or extermination - genocide is a modern concept. So by a process of ethnogenesis, we can see how the Macedonians were formed, as a heterogeneous ethno-political unit.

How did you come to this conclusion? Of course this might be true, but expulsion and to a lesser degree extermination, were methods used by the ancients to occupy new areas. Why did the Bryges migrate to Asia Minor, if they did not have to? Isn't this expulsion? We can't just view the Macedonians as a heterogeneous ethno-political unit, since they are NEVER accounted as one. To have a multi ethnic ethnos, you don't just look at the genes. No tribe or people on earth EVER is pure (pure from what? since when?) but you have to see it in terms of assimilation. A multi ethnic group of people is a state like the US, where every ethnic group keeps (even to a certain degree) its own customs, religion, speech, even sense of ethnicity. Macedonians were just Macedonians. If (and in so many centuries, I bet they did) non-Macedonian tribes were included in their ethnos (a term not to be confused with "nation"), the latter were assimilated and became a full part of their assimilators. Themistocles, Demosthenes and so many other glorious Athenians were partly barbaric. This did not make them less Greek, even if sometimes they were slandered as such (rings any bells?). Wasn't Demosthenes called a barbarian, a semi-Scythian? Yet, he was a Greek and of course enjoyed all the rights and honors every other Greek did.

According to the Greeks there was NO process of ethnogenesis as you imply. The Macedonians were an ethnos BEFORE migrating/invading north. They were not formed in these lands.

Now the second part of this claim is even more peculiar... "a heterogenous POLITICAL unit"? Macedonia was ruled by Macedonians, there were no multi-ethnical councils, non Macedonian kings, a set proportion of non Macedonian delegates in any kind of assembly.

5. Naturally, Greek language was then spread primarily by means of cultural contacts to much of Macedonia, but certainly not all. The cultural contrasts between Macedonia and Greece remained visible to all ancient historians.

As I have already shown, according to Herodot it was the Macedonians who spread the Hellenic language, not the other way around. And of course it is also interesting, that the Macedonians were Greek speakers, while the Thracians, Illyrians, Bryges, Paeonians etc were not. Again you say "to much of Macedonia" but fail to make understood whether you are speaking of the Macedonian tribes or the land of Macedonia as is TODAY defined... If you are talking about the Macedonian tribes, then you obviously are wrong, since all are attested to have been Greek speaking, if you are talking of Macedonia as a geographical term, then of course, there were non-Macedonian peoples who did not speak Greek. As for the cultural contrasts you are referring to, you are greatly generalizing. First of all you group the rest of Greece, as if the Spartans had the same customs to the Athenians, as if the Syracusans had the same customs to the Cretans. What is it that strikes you as non Greek in Macedonian culture? Is it the architecture? The arts of painting and sculpture? Pottery? Religion? Burial customs? The fact that they were a pastoral society in contrast to the seafaring Athenians? Was the custom of the Spartans to have any deformed child killed a Greek custom? Was their Agoge a Greek custom? Were the Epirotans, the Ambracians, the Thessalians, the Acarnanians also seafaring? Were the hats of the Thessalians typical of all Greeks? Were Syracuse, Sparta, the Cypriotic cities democracies? You cannot just summarize the traditions and culture of all Greek states as "Greek" and then just say that the Macedonians' were different.. Please, make more research on this and you will easily see that Macedonian traditions were more Greek than those of Lacedaemon. You really touch this aspect from an angle that makes little sense. Should you like to explore the cultural identity of the Macedonians, then you have to research their religion, their rituals, their self-identity, their art, their language, factors that even today define a cultural identity, rather than whether they put one or two jars in tombs.

6. Therefore, to classify their origins as "Greek" is clearly simplistic and chauvanistic.

This was not a good conclusion. To call everybody who disagree with your poor argumentation a chauvinist does not contribute to a civilized discussion, especially, when you are confronting accepted history and archaeology. It implies a deep disrespect to me and everyone else who happen to disagree.

Now... let's go on to your second post.

1. I'm afraid you misunderstood my points. I have not been "selective" in my sources, in fact, it is your compratriots who have been selective in the sourcing. They disregard any source which raises doubts about the Hellenic character of the Macedonians as "generalist" or "non-expert", see above discussions.

I hope I have misunderstood, but it unfortunately does not seem so. You have been selective in your sources, since you misquoted Herodot. I am not talking about other sources, since you offered none (it was a small text, you didn't have to). Yet, you misquoted Herodot, which is a selective use of a source. Greeks being selective? Of course not. They know that there are passages that call the Macedonians barbarians (however few in number), they know that there are academians who support that the Macedonians were a non Greek tribe (however few). They don't try to misquote them but to answer to their argumentation, which is a totally different thing. That there are unschooled Greeks who don't know a thing about history or archaeology and yet formulate opinions based on what they have heard or read someplace is of course self evident, but the general Greek approach on this matter is much more appropriate than using sources according to whim. Herodot conclusively claimed that the Macedonians were Greek AND that the Argeads were Greeks. Using Herodot to claim that "not all Macedonians spoke Greek", that "the Macedonians were called Temenids, before they migrated to Macedonia" etc, are obvious blunders and misquotes. As for "generalist" or "non-expert" opinions, I can only offer you my opinion if you exactly tell me to which ones you are referring to. Are there "generalist" or "non-expert" opinions? Of course there are. Unfortunately, the web is filled with opinions of people who misquote, generalize, falsely translate etc texts to further their cause. Yet, there are expert opinions too..

2. One might interpret this as a biasing of sources, although I do understand and acknowledge that the majority of scholars do in fact agree that the Ancient Macedonians were Greek, or at least, Greek speaking. This is not what I have been debating against.

Of course there is a biasing of sources. There are sources of value and others of no value. The question is always on what grounds anybody accepts or rejects a source. Rejecting a serious source should not be acceptable, arguing with it is. Accepting a worthless source is also unacceptable, using it to further conduct personal research is not.

However, your admission that "the majority of scholars do in fact agree that the Ancient Macedonians were Greek, or at least, Greek speaking" shows you are not yet another advocate of extremist positions, which makes me really happy.

3. The greek element in is indisputable in the origins of the A.Ms. Whether their tale from Argos is a metaphor, a semi-legendary account, or whatever, it is likely to signify the intrusive Greek element into Macedonia, then known as Emanthia.

Now.. this sentence for example calls for a lot of discussion. You first say "The greek element in is indisputable in the origins of the A.Ms". Correct. As far as all sources are concerned, this is the case. Then you proceed with "Whether their tale from Argos is a metaphor, a semi-legendary account, or whatever,..." No problem with that, although you avoid the words "..or the truth.." and you close up with "it is likely to signify the intrusive Greek element into Macedonia, then known as Emanthia.".... yes its is... although it is more likely to signify the Greekness of the Macedonian tribes. Again you are doing a mistake mixing up geography with peoples. Your argument is correct if one interprets Macedonia as a place, which is what you obviously do, when you are saying, that then it was called Emathia (by the way, much less sources on that than on the prehistory of the Macedonians...). But this element, you are referring to, the "intrusive Greek element", was according to the ancients the Macedonians. Anyone reading this sentence will misunderstand your use of Macedonia and unfortunately (not your fault) will think that what you mean is that there was "an intrusive Greek element" among the Macedonian people. The question I am posing here is what did you mean?

4. You say that no Greek denies that Macedonia was originally Thracian or Illyrian territory, yet if you again refer above, you well note that other users even deny this (eg see Deucalionite's comment, who if anything, is a very learned and rather 'moderate' user).

Again you are doing the same mistake... which Macedonia are you talking about? And what Thracians or Illyrians are you talking about? Macedonia in the current sense was of course in many parts inhabited by Thracian or/and Illyrian. Paeonians for example could have been Thracian tribes and they lived in the modern region of Macedonia before the migration of the Macedonians, Of course their land was NOT Emathia, nor was it called Macedonia afterwards up until much later. The Bryges, do not seem to have been neither Illyrian nor Thracian but they were non-Greek and of course non-Macedonians. It all has to do with HOW YOU DEFINE MACEDONIA. Macedonia Proper was not Illyrian nor Thracian territory, before the Macedonian migration, as archaeology seems to suggest. But it also was not Greek. You see there were more cultures/peoples/tribes etc in the wider Macedonian region than just Thracians or Illyrians.

5. My point is that the Greek element introduced into Macedonia was a model of 'elite dominance', whereby Greek speakers from south imposed themselves and their language on the territory and its inhabitants. It was upon this movement and subsequent assimilation of peoples that the Macedonians begin as a people. To simply speak of them as Greek, or not, is simplistic and wrong. It denies the complexities involved in how a people begin. They were a mixed people which became increasingly Atticised, now doubt in part due to the political ploys of the Argeads themselves. Was it not only the Royal Family which were admitted to the Olympic games, and not other Macedonians ?

I really don't mean any disrespect, but as what kind of a source should I accept you? You come to a conclusion (already advocated or proposed by some historians, true) and you propose that to call them a Greek tribe is "simplistc" (yet another offensive term meant for all of us who advocate that theory and do not consider ourselves simplistic). But apart from just stating your opinion, you fail to present any archaeological or literary evidence to support it. Herodot doe NOT agree with you. Nor do Thucydides or Strabo, names you later mention. You keep on presenting the Macedonians as beginning in Macedonia. They did not. They were a FORMED people, MIGRATING/INVADING a new land... They were NOT formed in this land, so as to have to go back in time to see what the Ur-Macedonian people were... And of course based on this logic, then it is simplistic to call the Athenians Greek, since they were Pelasgians mixed with Ionians... the Lacedaemonians Greek, since they were Macedonians. Dorians, so, if it is simplistic for us to call Macedonians Greek, then how can we call the Spartans such? And this would account to ANY PEOPLE OF THE WORLD... Were the Thracians Thracian? The Illyrians Illyrian? The Turks Turk? The Goths Goth? The Slavs Slav? etc etc etc etc etc... Ethnologically categorizing a people is a procedure that takes into account many aspects, apart from the question "Did they grow out of the earth or did they 4.000 years before call themselves with a different name?".

There is absolutely NO evidence that would point to them being a mixed people, apart from suggestions, based on their proximity to other cultures. But then, the Ionians were also bordering non-Greeks, so did the Syracusans etc. Were they Greek? Of course they were. There is no evidence of any "multi cultural" or "multi ethnic" Macedonian people. No ancient writer ever suggested that. And as already explained, ASSIMILATED foreigners do NOT form a "multi ethnic" community, unless they are of a totally different race (e.g. African vs Caucasian).

As for the role of the Argeads in the "atticization" of the Macedonians, again you are making huge allowances. You are talking of a time when most of the Greek world was "atticizing". You are advocating a hypothesis with absolutely no evidence. Is there any evidence that the Argeads in any way forced their people to change their speech? Did any ancient writer ever commented on how the Argeads hellenized the Macedonians? Nevertheless, Herodot explicitly states that the Macedonians hellenized the Athenians, Strattis made fun of the Greek spoken by the Macedonians and of course there is no archaeological proof that any non-Greek language was ever written by the Macedonians, be them Argeads or not... And you confuse Argeads with the Macedonians... Even if the Argeads did try to atticize their people (an assumption that by no means would mean that their language was not Hellenic), how about the rest of the Macedonian kingdoms? You see, the Argeads, were just ONE Macedonian kingdom, there were many others... Why or how were they "hellenized" or "atticized"?

As for the Argead Royal family (again NOT the Macedonian ONLY royals...), who says that the rest of the Macedonians were NOT accepted to the Olympic games? Herodot ONLY says that Alexander's case was examined AFTER some athletes accused him of being a barbarian. What does this tell us? First, that when he applied, there was no problem, which means that normally there would have been no problem... And of course there is no saying if Macedonians took part before Alexander I. They might have they might have not. You see, scientifically , we don't know if he was the first Macedonian to take part in the Olympic Games, we just know that his participation was challenged, albeit a futile act, since the Hellanodices though otherwise. What we are certain of, is that common Macedonians have contested in the ancient Olympic Games, even if their first presence is attested after Alexander I's time. You will think that the absence of any other testimonies proves that Macedonians did not take part in the games before Alexander I, but this is not so. Although this probability is of course there, if we should categorize Hellenes, according to when we have evidence that they competed in the Olympic Games, then we would have no option but to exclude most Greeks from the Greek world. What definitely can be said is that the participation itself of royal AND non royal Macedonians proves that, at least to the eyes of their contemporary Greeks, they were counted as Greeks.

6. In addition, you would be wrong to claim that this process did not apply to other tribes. Although also disputed, some also argue that the so-called Epirotians (Chaionians, Mollosians) are Hellenized Illyrians. Even the Paeones and Thracians, which are obviously non-Hellenic, became largely Hellenized by the end of antiquity.

Every Hellenic tribe was hellenized sometime in its past. Even the first Hellenes, whoever these might have been, have to have been "hellenized" sometime in their past. But comparing the Thracian hellenization to this of the Macedonians is impossible. As I have already stated, according to Herodot, even the Athenians were "hellenized" by the Macedonians... Yet, we are arguing over the hellenic identity of the Macedonians during a specific historical time and of course you have to understand that "hellenized" can have two meanings. 1. Cultural and linguistic and/or 2. Ethnical hellenization. There were many hellenized barbarians in the ancient past, but they still held to their non-Greek identities. Yet, the Macedonians had a both cultural/linguistic AND an ethnic hellenic identity, and these are, as you have accepted, facts difficult to disprove.

7. And yes, I do suspect that established and reputable scholars still need to catch up with modern thinking about ethnicity ! The old Kossinian approach to archaelogy and the concept of Volk is hard to shake off, no matter how many current social anthropologists have argued against such outdated assumptions

...well, this is your opinion, but it seems that you want to impose an ethnicity on the ancient Macedonians rather than acknowledging their right to one. In my book, when something looks like a horse, whines like a horse, tastes like horse, other people around me tell me that it is a horse and when asked replies that it is a horse, this something is most possibly a horse... The burden of evidence falls upon the person who insists it is something else.

8. I leave with this quote Names of people may seem familiar after a thousand years, but the social, cultural and political realities covered by these names were radically different from what they are today. The real history of the nations of Europe begins in the 18th century. This is not deny that, in the past, people had notions of collective identity.

... I have no problem with that unless one should use it to minimize the historical identities of given peoples.

9. Macedonia was initially setllted by Thracians and Ilyrian groups. This is evidenced not only by the ancients’ writings who called the lands around the Axius, the Thermic Gulf, and the HEART of the future Kingdom of Macedon as Thrace [2]. Eg Strabo ‘’Wat is now Macedonia was called in earlier times Emanthia. This territory was held by certain of the Epirotes and Illyrians,, but most of it by Bottiaeans and Thracians. The Bottiaeans, they say, were from Crete by descent (sic) and of the Thracians the Pieres occupied Piera and the area by Olympus, the Paeones that by the Axius .. the Edoni and the Bisaltae the rest of the land up to the Strymon’’ (Strabo, VII, fr. II). As for the Illyrians: ‘’the archaeological evidence is clear at Verginia and in the lower Vardar valley, they were in control from some time in the 8th century BC to c. 650 BC”. Illyrian features typical of the Glasinac culture. Similarly, evidence of Thracian remains are also abundant.

Strabo, VII, fr 11 (XI) and not II (2) reads : "What is now called Macedonia was in earlier times called Emathia. And it took its present name from Macedon, one of its early chieftains. And there was also a city emathia close to the sea. Now a part of this country was taken and held by certain of the Epeirotes and the Illyrians, but most of it by the Bottiaei and the Thracians. The Bottiaei came from Crete originally, so it is said, along with Botton as chieftain. As for the Thracians, the Pieres inhabited Pieria and the region about Olympus; the Paeones, the region on both sides of the Axius River, which on that account is called Amphaxitis; the Edoni and Bisaltae, the rest of the country as far as the Strymon. Of these two peoples the latter are called Bisaltae alone, whereas a part of the Edoni are called Mygdones, a part Edones, and a part Sithones. But of all these tribes the Argeadae, as they are called, established themselves as masters, and also the Chalcidians of Euboea; for the Chalcidians of Euboea also came over to the country of the Sithones and jointly peopled about thirty cities in it, although later on the majority of them were ejected and came together into one city, Olynthus; and they were named the Thracian Chalcidians."

Do you think that after reading the original one comes to the same conclusion as when reading the text you gave? Even this (sic) part (although an erroneous use of the latin word, still its contemporary use), clearly shows that you agree with everything except for the part of any Cretans migrating there... And of course you left out the part about the Argead tribe and that of the Chalkideans. This is why I keep saying you tend to selectively use sources.

By the way further on he also claims "Pella belongs to Lower Macedonia, which the Bottiaei used to occupy; in early times the treasury of Macedonia was here. Philip enlarged it from a small city, because he was reared in it. It has a headland in what is called Lake Ludias; and it is from this lake that the Ludias River issues, and the lake itself is supplied by an offshoot of the Axius." Strabo, VII, fr 20, the people, whose existence or origin you seem to disagree with, yet use Strabo, adopting his other accounts... Anyways...Strabo, the man who said "Macedonia is of course Greece", gives at least three accounts on what lands different people ascribe to the geographical region of Macedonia in his 7th book and of course he has no trouble stating that there were barbaric tribes living there before the Macedonians, invading into Macedonia etc etc etc. Yet, he clearly differentiates between them. Thus, I agree, as I have already stated that in the past, before the Macedonians, there were other non-Greek tribes living and prospering in these very lands, but the fact remains that these were non-Macedonians and have nothing to do with them, apart from being assimilated or ousted and forced to migrate, so I fail to see any point in this.

As for your next quote, you will have to be more specific and of course always keep in mind that Greek presence in Illyria and THrace is even more evident than that, yet noone said that Illyrians were Greeks, because Greeks lived in parts of Illyria for centuries. You have to understand that trying to link different peoples because they lived close to each other is futile. There is no people in the world without someone on the other side of the border. And borders change. But until some excavation unearths a MACEDONIAN settlement with Thracian inscriptions, a MACEDONIAN settlement of an Illyrian culture, the fact remains, that Macedonians, Illyrians and Thracians were different people.

10. Back to Strabo: he records the expansion of Macedonians not as "Macedonians” but as ‘the so-called Argeadae’. The author suggests that the homeland of the Macedones was in the mountainous area of the Olympic mountain and the Heliacmon beneath. Theucydides account (Th. II. 99) describes their expansion into the lands of their neighbours. Both Thucydides and Herodous agree that the expansion of what later became known as the Macedones was associated with a royal house, the Temenidae of Argos in the Peloponesse (clearly Greek). Yet, the lifestyle of the Macedones was one of semi-pastoralism (akin to Vlachs), different to most Greeks. Similalry, they organized themselves into ethne – clusters of small tribes- just like the non-Greek Illyrians. In turn, the Macedonian ethne was sub-composed of Orestae, Molossoi, Perrhaebi, Lycentsae and the ‘Argaeadae’, amongst others. With the possible exception of the Mollosoi, it was only the Argaedae who claimed Greek descent. And it was only the Argaedae who participated in the Olympic games. Herodotus writes that Alexander was accepted not as a Macedonnian, but as a Temenid from Argos.

There are very few things to argue here. I will just add to your analysis.

Thucidides II.99 "Assembling in Doberus, they prepared for descending from the heights upon Lower Macedonia, where the dominions of Perdiccas lay; for the Lyncestae, Elimiots, and other tribes more inland, though Macedonians by blood and allies and, dependents of their kindred, still have their own separate governments.The country on the sea coast, now called Macedonia, was first acquired by Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his ancestors, originally Temenids from Argos. This was effected by the expulsion from Pieria of the Pierians, who afterwards inhabited Phagres and other places under Mount Pangaeus, beyond the Strymon (indeed the country between Pangaeus and the sea is still called the Pierian gulf) of the Bottiaeans, at present neighbors of the Chalcidians, from Bottia, and by the acquisition in Paeonia of a narrow strip along the river Axius extending to Pella and the sea; the district of Mygdonia, between the Axius and the Strymon, being also added by the expulsion of the Edonians. From Eordia also were driven the Eordians, most of whom perished, though a few of them still live round Physca, and the Almopians from Almopia. These Macedonians also conquered places belonging to the other tribes, which are still theirs--Anthemus, Crestonia, Bisaltia, and much of Macedonia proper. The whole is now called Macedonia, and at the time of the invasion of Sitalces, Perdiccas, Alexander's son, was the reigning king."

So, Thucidides is very cler in that there were other Macedonian tribes, other than the Argeads, with separate governments. Again the talkis of how the Pierians were expelled from their lands, the (Cretan according to Strabo) Bottiaeans. How the Edonians were also expelled, how the Eordeans were expelled and possibly slaughtered (they perished according to Thucidides) as well as the Almopians. All this has to do with your prior arguments about the Macedonians not expelling the beaten from their hearths. So, although the most successful in military affairs Macedonians were the Argeads, there were more Macedonian tribes.

I also agree with your views regarding the lifestyle of the Macedonians. It was very akin to that of the Aetolians, the Cretans of the day and of many other Greek tribes (actually most Greek tribes, who were not considered nabal powers). I urge you to compare the lifestyle of the Macedonians to that of most Greeks and pinpoint their differences. You will easily see that most Greek states were semi pastoral. Even in Attica, most people did not live within the walls of the big cities. Do some research and write me your conclusions. The same applies to what you call "clusters of small tribes", a trend, you seem to imply foreign to Greek ways and akin to Illyrian, a clear mistake. The Athenians were divided in tribes (fylai). So were the Spartans. Both were united under a common rulership but this is not the same in the cases of the Thessalians, the Boeottians, the Acarnanians, the Cretans etc. What you describe as an "Illyrian custom" is in reality the case throughout Greece, Illyria, Thrace and most other ancient peoples including the Latins, the Celts, even the Slavs, the Mongols, the Germans etc etc etc. Then you talk about the differnt Macedonian tribes, of which the Molossoi were not a part, you claim that they might avocate Greek origin, although they definitely did (from Achilles himself) and you end up claiming that the other Macedonians did not claim Greek origin and did not take part in the Olympics... How do you know? Did Herodot claim that the Macedonians migrating north were only the Argreads? Did Thucidides call any non-Argead Macedonian tribe barbarians? How do you know that Cliton, Damasias or Lampos were Argead? Did the tetxs call them Argeads? And as far as Herodot is concerned, he is the greatest advocate of te Greekness of the Macedonians in general, not only that of Alexander I.

It is Herodot who says “Although the one nation nowhere yet went out, the Lacedaemonian was very much wandering. For, in the time of King Deucalion, it was settled in the land of Phthia, and in the time of Dorus, the son of Hellen, in the country under Ossa and Olympus, the so-called Histiaean. From the Histiaean, after it had been expelled by the Cadmeians, it was settled in Pindus called Macedonian (Makednon kaleomenon). Thence again it changed its place to the Dryopian land, and from the Dryopian thus it came to Peloponnesus, and was called Doric.” (Herodot, Book I, 56.3)> Here of course he is talking about the whole Macedonian ethnos and not just that of the Argeads. He also clearly states : “Now these were the nations who composed the Greek fleet. From the Peloponnese, the following- the Lacedaemonians with sixteen 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.” (Herodot, VIII, 43). Here Herodot,clearly makes the connection between the Macedonians and the Peoloponesians. Is there any Greek writer who criticized Herodot for any of these claims? We have countless commentaries and critical texts against so many other Greek writers... Any comments on these claims? No.

You keep jumping to conclusions. Stop trying to support your claims by any means and research the ancients more.

11. The Macedonian ruling house spoke Greek and had Greek names, but “to speak Greek was not to be Greek in the 6th and 5th centuries, that was a matter of culture”. Hence until later, the Macedonians were considered non-Greek barbarians in early times. Clearly they had different customs, lifestyle and political organization to the rest of Greece.

...Again you own opinion stretched to form an argument. You admit that the Argead House had Greek names and spoke Greek, you give some kind of a sourceless quote and you fail to add that they also claimed to be Greek, were acknowledged as being Greek, as was the case with all common Macedonians. Do you know how many thousands of named Macedonian commoners we have? Look up archives on epigraphy, signed artefacts, historical accounts. Your argument is incomplete and misguiding. Then you again clam that the Macedonians were "until later" considered non-Greek barbariasns, but you don't explain what you mean by "until later" or to who called them barbarians. You see there is absolutely NO text from before Demosthenes which even hinted at the Macedonians being barbaric. You just make a statement and present it as a fact, when in reality it is completely unsupported. About their customs, I have already commented, about their political organization I wonder... how did you draw your conclusion? Wishful thinking? Did Sparta have kings? Did Syracuse have kings? Did the Cypriot Greek cities have Kings? Some centuries before, all Greeks had kings. The first recorded according to Eusebius are the Sicyonian kings. He aslo gives us a list of the Athenian the Argives and the Corinthian kings and then those of the Macedonians, of course in a chapter about the Greeks. The thing is that you keep doing the great mistake to group all Greeks and then juxtapose then to the Macedonians. THis is a clear mistake. There are many Greek examples of a diversity in customs much more alien that the distance between Athenians and Macedonians, since I can only assume that when you are talking about Greeks you only mean the Athenians.

12. Notwithstanding, the archaeological record is clear that Macedonia was Hellenized after the 5th century. Yet this Hellenization should not be thought of as a mass migration of “Greeks” from farther south, expelling non-Greeks. Rather “Archaeologists today are much more inclined to think in terms of models of interactions. Such (sic) interactions were probably responsible for the development of the networks of contacts which facilitated the creation of similar customs”.[3] That is, the spread of a new archaeological culture need not require the implication that anyone actually moved; given that the cohesion to a material culture by certain groups might signify the acquisition of a new, higher level of identity. This is not to deny that there wasn;t some, small-scale migrations, eg of some kind of warrior-pastoralists. Herodotus and others’ semi-legendary accounts of the Argaeaeds might well be true. However, it more accurately suggests the movement of a small, new dominant clan imposing itself on other, obviously already mixed peoples. The disappearance of the previous Illyrian and Thracian cultures does not mean that those people also disappeared, but had merely adopted, or were eclipsed by, the new dominant group of the region which aspired a Hellenic cultural identity.

Again, you fill these pages with unsourced quotes. You keep presenting as self evident what you cannot support with arguments. "It is clear that Macedonia was Hellenized after the 5th century"???? Clear by whom? Are you again talking about the wider region of Macedonia? The region of which less than 25% was inhabited by Macedonians prior to the 5th century BC? The rest of this text is lacking any point or significance, since it is just a personal opinion of somone who might have or might not have presented some arguments before he dared utter it. As for the violent expulsion of the formr inhabitants of these areas, I have already commented on that by bringing forward the words of Thuidides, a source you chose to refer to. Again I have to clearly state that peoples assimilated into a culture count as members of that culture, a fact that you should keep in mind, when talking about how some villages, minor tribes etc might have been assimilated into the Macedonian, Athenian or Theban culture.

13. Thus it would be wrong to think of the Macedonians as a pre-formed people which existed in the depths of pre-history, an as yet unnoticed Greek people, biding their time. This is why there is no mention of Macedonians before 6th century BC. Clearly their origins are traced to the ascendency of a ruling group, or clan, which asserted authority over new peoples c. 6th century BC. Although the Teminids were Greek, the Macedonians were a mixed peoples.

Thus, according to the literary sources we have (until you can discover new ancient texts disproving the academically acknowledged ones), the Macedonians were a pre-formed people, which existed in the depths of pre-history, as a noticed Greek people who migrated north, expelled various non-Greek tribes and claimed their lands, a branch of which later migrated south and was recorded as the Return of the Heraclidae or the Dorian Invasion, hellenized the Athenians and entered the Peloponnese, where, among others, it formed the Lacedaemonian ethnos. There is no mention of the Macedonians before the 6th century, because there are no texts originating from before the 6th century that have to do with the Greek matters. Yet, all the texts from after the 6th century, are clearly supporting that the Macedonians migrated from central Greece to their new lands long before that. Their origin have nothing to do with the ascension of the Temenids, who formed a new Macedonian kingdom among other Macedonians, who of course are also attested to have come to power long before the 6th century (another peculiar mistake on your side) and well into the 9th century BC.

GK1973 (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. M<ine shall be forthcoming . . . Hxseek (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

OK!

GK1973 (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a brief response, because that is all which time allows me. I shall write more in a few days.

Firstly, I do not refer to you, or any others, as simple, but the synthesis of the article which focuses on whether the Macedonians were Greek or not, which might be a false dichotomy.

Secondly, we cannot take the sources at face value. Although they had a reasonable general knowledge, they were certainly no experts on geography or ethnology. The stories of expulsion of peoples are hyperboles to illustrate the object of their stories more clearly. I still maintain that there was little mass population exchange. Certainly no archaeological evidence exists for this, anywhere in Europe, apart from the initial conlonization, the post-glacial re-colonization, and perhaps during the Neolithic. According to Borza, there is little evidence to convincingly show a Greek migration into the southern Macedonia.

My ‘opinion’ about how ethnic groups formed is actually the published theory of reputable scholars. You are welcome to disagree with them. Equally, I should be able to present it. I agree with you that I should not compare Macedonians vs ‘other Greeks’, because you’re quite right in that every region had peculiarities. But this agrees with what I say, is that there is a fine line between calling the Ancient Macedonians Greek compared to stating they might have been of proto-Greek stock. Finally, absorption or assimilation is never a one way process, no matter how ‘advanced’on culture is, or claims to be, compared to be.

Hxseek (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not refer to you, or any others, as simple, but the synthesis of the article which focuses on whether the Macedonians were Greek or not, which might be a false dichotomy.

OK! People sometimes copy paste from various aggressive sources and inadvertently bring this aggression into such a discussion. I cannot tell if this was the case here, but it sometimes happens. Anyways, no harm done!

2. Secondly, we cannot take the sources at face value. Although they had a reasonable general knowledge, they were certainly no experts on geography or ethnology.

Why weren't the ancient historians expert on ethnology and geography? The ancient Greeks wee particularly interested and extremely well versed in those and other fields. They traveled, checked their sources, posed self and acknowledged opinions, recorded local customs, languages... Their motus operandi is not different from their counterparts in more modern times. Anyways, they recorded what was considered to be the truth without the DNA testing. Their approach to the ethnology of peoples of their times or their recent past is much more safer to adopt than any modern ethnologist's personal opinion, which anyways is largely based on these people's writings. How can we elaborate on the ancient Athenian culture if we do not give heed to the ancient texts? Draw conclusions from archaeological remains? Archeology can with very much difficulty describe the culture of a people. Most times it is used to fill in gaps and prove (or sometimes disprove) literary evidence.

3. The stories of expulsion of peoples are hyperboles to illustrate the object of their stories more clearly. I still maintain that there was little mass population exchange.

Why? Expulsion of peoples is what happened then, what happens now... actually it is much more problematic to propose a model in which aggressive invaders migrate to a place only to peacefully and lovingly live in harmony and cooperation with the people who used to rule over those lands, who used to work the lands, own and govern the various settlements... We do not live in a "global village", we live in countries and all counties, none excepted, have territorial claims on others, because sometime in the past their people were expelled from there (either forcefully or as a process of pressure). In these times, expulsions were even more common, due to the relative small area that each time was conquered. The first Macedonians settled in a very small area (according to our modern concept of country sizes). In a valley of maybe 1.000 sq. kms there simply was no room for them AND another tribe. They of course kept some as slaves or prisoners, but most were driven away to find other lands to settle. Ancient history is filled with such expulsions (although you could dispute them all saying that they are all exaggerations), starting with the expulsion of the Troans from Ilion.

4.Certainly no archaeological evidence exists for this, anywhere in Europe, apart from the initial conlonization, the post-glacial re-colonization, and perhaps during the Neolithic. According to Borza, there is little evidence to convincingly show a Greek migration into the southern Macedonia.

There is evidence in archaeology that has to do with the expulsion of peoples from their hearths, but then what would be a clear archaeological evidence? Burnt cities? There are many. Extinction of civilizations only to arise in a different place? Such instances exist also. Just think of what you are asking. Archaeology can help but it rarely can prove or disprove such theories or accounts. On the other hand just discrediting any written account from before the 20th century, because we do not agree with its content is a huge step you will find very difficult to make other people accept. As for Borza, although as a source he has been overquoted, you should better give his suggestions and be absolutely certain, that other suggestions of his will not emerge, supporting something different. As you yourself propose, Borza supports that "there is little evidence to convincingly show..". So 1. "little evidence", meaning archaeological evidence, which in this case would more look like the remnants of some thousands footsteps on some road from Dodone into Macedonia, convincingly dated between the 11th and 13th century BC, along with multiple sandal tags clearly stating that it was Macedonians migrating north to expel other peoples... What is the "evidence" of the Indoeuropean Invasion? How about the Dorian Invasion? And 2. "convincingly"... So, Borza does not, according to your words, disprove the literary evidence. He just states that there should be room for further theories. I agree with that. History is of course not static and new evidence might emerge even as to the Slavness or Greekness of the Chinese! But, you see, in order to produce a theory that will replace another theory as the prevalent academic opinion, it should itself present convincing data. Just proposing that these people didn't know their past and we do, that these people were not experts and we, 2,500 years later ,are not convincing arguments. Of course you have to know that even Borza (I could even comment on his nationality, but this would be cheap talk) admits that they possibly were a Greek tribe. He writes

“We have seen that the “Makedones” or “highlanders” of mountainous western Macedonia may have been derived from northwest Greek stock. That is, northwest Greece provided a pool of Indo-European speakers of proto-Greek from which emerged the tribes who were later known by different names as they established their regional identities in separate parts of the country. Thus the Macedonians may have been related to those peoples who at an earlier time migrated south to become the historical Dorians, and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians. If it were known that Macedonian was a proper dialect of Greek, like the dialects spoken by Dorians and Molossians, we would be on much firmer ground in this hypothesis.”

E.N.Borza “In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon” (revised edition, 1992), page 78

You see Borza is critical but not dismissive. As much as I disagree with many of his assumptions and deductions, he still navigates within academic credence and seriousness.

5. My ‘opinion’ about how ethnic groups formed is actually the published theory of reputable scholars. You are welcome to disagree with them. Equally, I should be able to present it.

Of course. But you should always keep in mind that presenting theories does not involve accusing the established theories. It falls on the less supported theories to prove themselves as more credible and probable.

6. I agree with you that I should not compare Macedonians vs ‘other Greeks’, because you’re quite right in that every region had peculiarities. But this agrees with what I say, is that there is a fine line between calling the Ancient Macedonians Greek compared to stating they might have been of proto-Greek stock.

If you read my words more carefully, you will see that I have not dismissed your argument based on the peculiarities of other Greek states' traditions. "Culture" comprises of more than burial customs. The culture of the ancient Macedonians was indeed Hellenic. Even if you disagree with that, which is your right,your conclusion is again incomplete, since, not being able to categorize a certain tradition as Greek does not mean that you can thus categorize it as non-Greek or proto-Greek or anything else. You should make your efforts based on more data.

7. Finally, absorption or assimilation is never a one way process, no matter how ‘advanced’on culture is, or claims to be, compared to be.

This is also partially correct. The Greek civilization of course through an assimilation process accepted many alien components, which eventually formed what we call Greek as well as what they called Greek. "Pelasgian Zeus" they called him. Nevertheless, an assimilation process concludes in somebody being assimilated into an alien culture. No matter how much he contributes to his assimilator, the end result cannot be renamed into something new, unless the influence was so great that resulted in a truly different outcome. The Macedonians assimilated whichever named or unnamed tribes, essentially converting them into Hellenes. This is what "hellenization" means. Should historians assume your position, then we would be unable to name, categorize and study any people, any time. Is there any civilization on earth which NEVER adopted anything from anyone? This is how civilizations develop. Acknowledging a minor contribution of an alien culture into an existing one does not bear the strength to revise this civilization's identity. On the other hand, if this contribution radically changes the characteristics of a given civilization, then such steps have been made. This is why, for example, we are talking about a Graecoroman civilization, about an Islamic Spain etc.

Cheers!

GK1973 (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with your arguements is that your fundamental assumpations are wrong, thereby your entire arguement is flawed, although your knowledge of the myths and legends is second-to-none.

Your insistance that the ancient historians new exactly what they were talking about is incorrect. Yes, they did classify people according to some objective criteria. But these were overzealous attempts to categorize peoples into neat baskets. We have seen this time & time again, such as the coining of terms Keltoi, Germani and Sclaveni. Eg archaeological evidence disproves that the people the Greeks name Celts shared any sense of unified identity. If the Greeks were wrong, or perhaps over-siplistic, about these, then why would they be right about the Macedonians. Ancient writers used second hand sources, added their own narrative techniques, and modified their stories to suit their own political stances. Hardly irrefutable evidence, although there were some grains of truth.

Secondly, you have maintianed the disproven picture that the migrations of historic times were massive. As if an entire 'nation' just ups and moves down the road and kicks out its neighbours. I have already attempted to clarify for you that this is just not what happened. Only small groups of people moved, eg "martial" sectors, military elite, whatever you want to call them. They went and formed new groups, although they might well have carried their traditions & myths of theold group with them. The idea that an entire Macedonian tribe just packed up and moved north has little evidence to support it. The convincing proof of Macedon's existence starts from their time in lower Macedonia, a place which contained various cultural and linguistic groupings. Although the so-called Illyrian and Thracian material remains eventually end by the 5th century BC, this does not mean that the entire population was displaced. Whan a 'native' population is subdued, they eventually mixed in with the ruling caste, given that the natives were often numerically superior. If they had been killed off, then how would the new rulers collect their tribute, raise an army, and profit from agricultural surplasses ? You need to go and read some up to date books on this, my friend. Beleive me, it will improve the way you understand what a 'migration' is

Finally, language is not the only marker of ethnicity. Much of the claims made by certain historians is that the Macedonians were Greek becasue they spoke Greek, or a dialect of it. Notwithstanding that even the theory that Macedonians was a Greek language is not universally accepted, Hammond wrote "the men of the royal house certainly spoke Greek. They also spoke the language of their people, 'Macedonian', which contained words of early Greek origin but was not intelligible to contemporary Greeks. The Macedonians in general did not consider themselves Greeks, nor were they considered Greeks by their neighbours.

The peoples of Macedonia remained a mixture, evidenced by their contrasting make - up compared to the 'gracile' build of Greeks. It was in Macedonia, and not in Argos, or Thessaly that the Macedonians solidified more compactly into a people.

Hxseek (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

1. The trouble with your arguements is that your fundamental assumpations are wrong, thereby your entire arguement is flawed, although your knowledge of the myths and legends is second-to-none.

Thank you for your kind words. As you can perfectly understand, history is a collection of assumptions. The difference between mainstream history and fringe theories is the abundance and acceptance of the existing sources. The structure of the science of history is based on probability rather than direct proof. I could be a creationist and strive to prove that all is futile since it is God that made the Earth some 8.000 years ago and provide proof from the bible on things that belief alone can explain, disproving carbon dating and asserting that our forefathers walked with the dinosaurs. In history we base our assumptions on the written sources, which we intertpret, compare, sometimes stretch in search for logic, looking for proof through archaeology. What would we know of the Romans should we a priori assume that the ancient historians were wrong? What would we know of the Macedonians themselves? You see, your fundamental assumption that the Greek historians did not know what they wrote of, your discrediting them, leaves you with absolutely no arguments about the Macedonians either. If you reject the words of Demosthenes, the passages from Arrian or Curtius Rufus which you interpret as a sign that the Macedonians spoke a non Greek dialect, if you reject the history of the Macedonians as is related by Herodot and agreed on by ALL ancient sources (since all ancient writers did agree as to the identity of the Argeads by simply calling them Temenids and Argeads, by constantly repeating and not refuting that Alexander's progenitors were indeed Hercules and Achilles, since an Aeacid), then you have nothing else but archaeology. And this is when things get even tougher, because all archaeological evidence that can be attributed to the Macedonian people is purely Greek in appearance and essence. Archaeology alone, literary sources aside, shows that there was a people which called itself Macedonian in Greek and had a distinctly Greek civilization. The assumption certain individuals make that this happens only because the Macedonians were hellenized sometime before the 5th century cannot stand on archaeology alone, since there is no evidence of the same people having a different culture. The whole structure of a non-Greek Macedonian theory is based on few, albeit existent, literary sources and disproving them creates a bigger problem to you than to Greeks. For example, if you discredit the tale about Alexander I and how other athletes disputed his Greekness, then you are only left with the certainty that Macedonians did indeed take part in the Olympics, not being able to even make assumptions as to when they started, whether only royalties took part and other theories that are used to support your theory.

2. Your insistence that the ancient historians new exactly what they were talking about is incorrect. Yes, they did classify people according to some objective criteria. But these were overzealous attempts to categorize peoples into neat baskets.

I do not suggest that the ancients "knew exactly what they were talking about", this I cannot say even about contemporary sources, since there are so many reasons why someone might be mistaken, but in the course of 800 years, from the 6-7th century BC to the 2-3rd century AD, they have left us with an amazing collection of books, a truly astounding wealth in knowledge that has helped us shed light into history. How do we know of the Roman history if not by the same authors? How do we know of Carthage? of the Celtiberians? of Vercingetorix and Boudicca? The same people you are trying to disprove wrote about Cyrus the Great, Artaxerxes, Brennos, king Minos...History is based on them. They were living at times mostly near to what they were describing. Of course the chance that they are right is larger than any assumption I could make. And this is why their word would be heard and more easily accepted than a theory I might devise about how they said something but in reality meant something else. Or how I know that they were mistaken, basing ny arguments not on archaeology, but on my own personal, subjective logic. Noone admits everything in literary sources. It is consensus that we are trying to locate. Demosthenes did write, according to the evidence we have from medieval manuscripts of course, that Philip was a barbarian, but we are critical, since his opinion lacks acceptance by millions of pages of acknowledged Roman and Greek text. Another account talks of Alexander having horns, another of ghosts fighting along with the Greeks at Plataea, another of Gods smiting the Gauls of Brennus in Greece with lightning and earthquakes. There is a process in admitting literary evidence as proof and even there, there is room for other opinions. But these opinions have to be based on some form of evidence, be it archaeological or historical. Just wishful thinking and gross generalizations cannot stand acceptance. Calling their historical heritage “overzealous attempts to categorize peoples into neat baskets” truly does not give them the credit they deserve. Do you think that modern historians or anthropologists work on a more scientific basis than these people did? The Greek, as well as the Roman, civilization was a culture with a passion to record and criticize. If it weren’t for them, we would stand in the dark concerning most matters on ancient history. To call the likes of Aristotle, Pythagoras, Archemides, Polybius, Strabo, Plato and so many others, overzealous pseudoscientists, whose words we should not study, since they bare no weight, is really a new historical approach that no historian advocates no matter how extreme his opinions might be. On the contrary, most historians who propose fringe theories BASE them on some obscure passage, new translation or interpretation, as does everybody who claims that the Macedonians were indeed no Greek tribe.

3. We have seen this time & time again, such as the coining of terms Keltoi, Germani and Sclaveni. Eg archaeological evidence disproves that the people the Greeks name Celts shared any sense of unified identity. If the Greeks were wrong, or perhaps over-siplistic, about these, then why would they be right about the Macedonians. Ancient writers used second hand sources, added their own narrative techniques, and modified their stories to suit their own political stances. Hardly irrefutable evidence, although there were some grains of truth.

What you are saying about the Keltoi has nothing to do with the issue of the Macedonians. First of all, you should study those writings from the writers’ perspective, not your own, or my own for that matter. Greeks categorized different people according to their understanding, but the fact that all Keltoi should be relative tribes is nothing they claimed. For example, the term Skythes was used for ALL peoples residing over Istros to the east, regardless of possible tribal or ethnic differences. The same methodology they employed with the term Keltoi, Germanoi, even with the Slavs. When they had a concrete opinion on the culture, mythology, language etc of a nation they recorded it, but they also wrote about nations they did not know much, again, clearly making that visible. There are lots of commentaries of Greek geographers criticizing the opinions and statements of their predecessors. They brought on new data, new knowledge, they traveled and studied different cultures. Their historical and anthropological analysis had nothing to envy from modern methodologies. You are mistaken if you think that they were rigid in their opinions, that they didn’t look into things with a critical eye. They just never disputed (in the thousands of surviving texts) the opinions of Herodot, the Temenid legend and generally the Greekness of the Macedonians. Maybe such texts will be discovered in the future. But until then, the discrediting theories are subjected to strong criticism, because they are based on hints such as “We know that Herodot had traveled to Thasos. So, it is very possible that he might have crossed over to Thrace, from there pass through Macedonia and there having been subject to pressure from Alexander to write about the Greekness of himself and the rest of the Macedonians". No matter how strange you find what I wrote right now, this is ACTUALLY the main argument of Badian and Borza on why we should discredit Herodot... The fact that Herodot was not in the position to influence Greek matters, the fact that NO other Greek, Greco-Roman or otherwise relevant historian EVER (always according to our knowledge) criticized his proposed genesis of the Macedonian kingdom, the fact that ALL sources refer to Alexander, Philip and all other Temenids, as Argeads or Temenids, clearly referring to their progenitors is what makes such claims sound far fetched, this is why this theory is not widely accepted. Arrian has Alexander talk to his Macedonians about THEIR progenitor (not his), Heracles. These are not Herodot’s words, yet he, as do ALL other Greco-Roman historians clearly accepts the same theories as to the genesis of the Macedonians. Again, it is your and everyone’s right to support any theories concerning any historical event. There are Greeks who support that Mohammed was a Byzantine spy, based on some texts, which imply Byzantine infiltration in 6th century Arabia. There are Greeks who support that the Romans were in reality a Greek tribe, because it is proposed by the Romans themselves in certain texts as ONE of their possible origins. What is different as to the case of the Macedonians is that there is NO other proposed theory on their emergence. Now, as to the possibility of having it all wrong with the Macedonians is existent, albeit minimal for many reasons. First of all, they were their neighbors, so their knowledge of them was extensive. Secondly, there was never any dispute on the words of Herodot, nor on those of Hesiod or others who wrote about the origins of the Macedonians. Thirdly, the Macedonians themselves were fierce advocates of their Greekness (fierce here denoting their persistence in being included in the Greek world, culturally, linguistically etc. If they were not Greek in the 8th or 10th century BC, they truly became Greeks by choice in the later centuries, a fact even Badian, a proponent of the barbarism of the Macedonians, does NOT refute.) You see, all supporters of the non-Greekness of the Macedonians ALWAYS strive to find arguments from BEFORE the 5th century!!!! They do not dare propose that judging from evidence after that, one can have even the slightest of possibilities that the Macedonians were not Greeks. And of course you should keep in mind, that Borza does not advocate that the Macedonians were not Greeks. He is critical, but NOT dismissive, since he clearly explains that this IS the most possible theory, yet insist that other theories can also be proposed.

You also talk about the ancients using second hand sources... well, so do most of us scholars today! Yet, if you follow the methodologies of the ancients, you will soon find out that they were obsessed with primary sources and would often criticize writers for not having witnessed themselves some events or traveled to certain places. Herodot, Arrian, Xenophon, Strabo... these people were extensively traveled. they saw most things they described with their own eyes. Don’t ever assume that the ancients had a limited knowledge of the Macedonian kingdom. They had a limited knowledge on India, on Celtiberians, on Arabs but they were perfectly acquainted with anything Macedonian. Doesn’t it strike you as a little nit odd, how most writers wrote in the Hellenistic and Roman era and yet NOT ONE called the Macedonian tyrants of Greece “barbarians”? That NOT ONE ever disputed the “fairy tales” about their “self proclaimed Greekness”, about their “unsubstantiated claims” that they had anything to do with purely Greek heroes of the caliber of Achilles and Hercules? The Macedonians were not always lenient. In the times of Polybius, a statesman of the Achaean Confederacy on top of being an important historian, the Macedonians had just lost their hold over Greece... Greece was at last free!!!! Why did he, a leader of Achaeans, NEVER accuse the Macedonians of non-Greekness among all other accusations he made against Philip V or Perseus? He clearly saw Macedonians as Greeks, although he was among the tyrannized, among those freed by the Roman gladius... Dismissing his testimony, because “he must have an agenda we don’t know about” is of course your choice, but this methodology, as already explained, will leave you with NO KNOWLEDGE AT ALL about any ancient matter. And archaeology is much more difficult to be used (interpreted, distorted, manipulated, explained etc etc etc) to reach any such conclusion.

4. Secondly, you have maintianed the disproven picture that the migrations of historic times were massive. As if an entire 'nation' just ups and moves down the road and kicks out its neighbours. I have already attempted to clarify for you that this is just not what happened.

You are claiming that “massive” migrations are a “disproved” fact. Why? Who says so? Don't the numerous examples from the Medieval times teach us that they have indeed been a fact in the world's history? What is the story of the Visigoths? the Ostrogoths? the Slav? The Viking? What is the story of the Greek colonies? the Roman migration to Lation? the colonization of Carthago? the Hebrew migration to Palestine, the Brygian migration to Asia Minor? And of course, how do you define “massive”? Over 10.000 people? 100.000? And when you are talking about a massive Macedonian invasion, of course you have to understand that we are talking about a really small migration in numbers. We have evidence and testimonies to migrations and invasions of hundreds of thousands, while the Macedonians, given the limited space they were assumed to have lived on, were much fewer in numbers. The Macedonians of prehistory are a small tribe, a mediocre one when compared to its neighbors. If you just study a little bit of (less documented) medieval history, you will become more acquainted with the process of migratory invasions and displacement of peoples. You claim you were displaced from Aegean Macedonia, Greeks claim they were displaced from Constantinople and Smyrna, the Cypriots claim they were displaced and their lands assumed by Turks from Anatolia, the Palestinians claim they were displaced, so do the native Americans from the massive migration of the Europeans, etc. The world's history is full of such events you choose to ignore or just set aside. We can discuss the process of the Macedonian migration, although I think that you will stick to your hypothesis that they indeed shook hands of friendship with the local owners of pastures and fields, towns and orchards and all together formed a great and prosperous civilization, something unheard of in history. No one talks about total displacements. If you read my points carefully, you will see that I am talking about a forceful invasion followed by forceful and/or peaceful assimilation, which in its own right is a different thing, allowing for "alien" DNA to permeate a given civilization, yet, leaving it relatively untouched in historical terms.

5. Only small groups of people moved, eg "martial" sectors, military elite, whatever you want to call them. They went and formed new groups, although they might well have carried their traditions & myths of theold group with them. The idea that an entire Macedonian tribe just packed up and moved north has little evidence to support it.

Now, this... I can’t make much sense of... What you propose is unheard of! When did you ever read that any “military elite” migrated away from their lands, where they were lords, to find a new people which would then “adopt” them? What you are proposing roughly resembles the colonization process that took place in ancient and medieval times, but ALWAYS, these colonies were populated by commoners of the same race, since the soldiers, the craftsmen, the traders, of course also brought along their families... Even the Macedonians themselves populated their cities in the east with Greeks, they gave incentives to attract Greek populations over to their territories (you should read about the kleirouchies), so that they can base their rule on a solid basis of a kindred ruling caste. NEVER in history, was a conquering ruling class assimilate the conquered population, unless this class really was followed by masses of kindred commoners, as seems that you suggest regarding the Macedonians. If I understand you well, you are proposing that back in prehistory there might have been some Macedonian warlord, who invaded the enemy, conquered him and then established a ruling class, which for some reason was completely cut away from its homeland, although their homeland was just a day’s march to the south. Instead of incorporating this small, neighboring land to their homeland, instead of driving the owners of those fertile valleys away and give the land to his soldiers and their families, this warlord chose to send the men back on the mountains and rule over an alien people with a force of his men, who followed him without their families. At the same time, he might or might not have ruled over his former lands but for some reason, these lands were lost to him, his people disappeared and for some reason, maybe because he was a beloved and wise conqueror, his new people, not only did not slit his throat, not only did not revolt, but they also were assimilated by him... It just doesn’t work this way... When a small tribe conquered a better land, they just assumed the former residents farmsteads, houses, towns, ports, pastures, they exploited the conquered population as workers in mines and constructions, they ransomed them, they sold them for slaves to make an extra income. It is not me that I have to procure some kind of proof here... I have accepted history on my side. I have the ancient texts relating the story as I support it. I have countless historical paradigms supporting my views. It is you, who should bring forward evidence to support your theory. Just describing these theories as “new” or “modern” bears no weight, unless you can also bring evidence and of course present the extent of its support. As for evidence of a Macedonian migration, again it is up to you to bring evidence that it did not happen, not the opposite way around. There is much to suggest that migrations happened in the region, much to suggest that there was forceful expulsion and conquest, yet no videotape has yet been found to conclusively prove that sometime in prehistory, a people called Macedonians invaded the area. Can any archaeological find ALONE prove to us that Genghis Khan ever invaded Europe? Any archaeological finding that can conclusively prove that the Triballi were not indeed the ancestors of the Athenians? You are disregarding concrete archaeological evidence that the Macedonians had a purely Greek culture, yet you demand to be shown concrete archaeological evidence that a historically minor migration of a tribe took place sometime in the unrecorded prehistory. Well... we have evidence of a number of forceful events, maybe one of those has to do with the Macedonians. What is most important is the archaeological continuance of Macedonian presence well into an era when they themselves could document their Greek culture. What can be proven through archaeology is that nobody forced the Macedonians to be Greeks. They were Greeks in a time when most that had to do with the Greek culture did not yet exist! They were a clear part of the genesis of what we call Hellenic Civilization and they were the major medium, through which it spread to the world.

6. The convincing proof of Macedon's existence starts from their time in lower Macedonia, a place which contained various cultural and linguistic groupings. Although the so-called Illyrian and Thracian material remains eventually end by the 5th century BC, this does not mean that the entire population was displaced. Whan a 'native' population is subdued, they eventually mixed in with the ruling caste, given that the natives were often numerically superior. If they had been killed off, then how would the new rulers collect their tribute, raise an army, and profit from agricultural surplasses ? You need to go and read some up to date books on this, my friend. Beleive me, it will improve the way you understand what a 'migration' is

What does anything of that have to do with the Macedonians? What if there were other tongues spoken in Lower Macedonia? First of all, let me use your own arguments... How do you know that those people did not all talk Greek? How do you know that the Illyrians did not talk in Greek? Can it be because ANCIENT GREEKS SAID SO? So was the case with the Greek states of Ionia, of Magna Graecia, of Euxinus Pontus, of Marmarica, Gaul and Iberia... So? What does the total displacement of any populations have to do with the Macedonians? They were no multiethnic state... they didn’t even use to mix with Macedonians from other Macedonian states (they did, but it was not commonplace)! If some peoples or remnants thereof were assimilated into their civilization, as did happen in ALL ancient civilizations (again, Themistocles’ and Demosthenes' mothers were barbarians, did that make them less Greek, or does that give the right to the Ukrainians to demand Athenian history?), so what? Or do you suggest that from now on we should stop using ANY ETHNIC DETERMINATION, even regarding modern nations, just because no nation is pure? Should we stop differentiating between cultures too? What you are suggesting is that there were NO MACEDONIANS, and as such no one has the right to claim the history or descendance of a people that never existed as a people. You describe them as self deluded people whose testimonies we should not take seriously, whose self determination we should reject, just because they were not genetically pure... This is also the case with Romans, Goths, Persians, all Greeks, Carthaginians, Celtiberians, Gauls, Mongols, Indians, Chinese... Should we just abandon all onomatology? Should we claim that all people can claim any history and descendance, since we either descend from Adam or from Lucy? What you are supporting cannot stand and has nothing to do with any migratory theories, it has just to do with an unwillingness to accept that regardless of purity, people in the past had an ethnic consciousness, a history, a language, a culture. As for studying "new" bibliography, I am always open, but you (again) have provided none. So, point me to the bibliography which links any migratory theories to the deprivation of the right to have certain unique identity and I promise you that I will look into it. You see, even if you understand what a “migration” is, you seem to fail to understand the process of assimilation and identity development. Can you name me ONE people who did not conquer other peoples in its entire history? To insist that this is a reason, why we should refute any identity this people developed in its history, is a really novel and interesting way to perceive history.

7. Finally, language is not the only marker of ethnicity. Much of the claims made by certain historians is that the Macedonians were Greek becasue they spoke Greek, or a dialect of it. Notwithstanding that even the theory that Macedonians was a Greek language is not universally accepted, Hammond wrote "the men of the royal house certainly spoke Greek. They also spoke the language of their people, 'Macedonian', which contained words of early Greek origin but was not intelligible to contemporary Greeks. The Macedonians in general did not consider themselves Greeks, nor were they considered Greeks by their neighbours.

Of course not! Although it is a huge factor.... Actually most claims that the Macedonians were a Greek tribe are based on anything BUT that! On the other hand, this is the ONLY argument of those who insist that the Macedonians were not Greeks! The whole argumentation of the deniers of the Greekness of the Macedonians is based on the possibility (however distant, as its proponents themselves admit) that the Macedonians did not speak Greek before the 6th century BC! Their culture is completely Greek! Their religion, their mythology, their art, their military institutions (do you know they had hoplites before Philip introduced the sarissa?), their perception of the world, their feelings of kinship towards the other Greeks in relation to the rest of the "barbarian" world! As I have told you, details in cultural elements, such as wedding or burial customs always include peculiarities, but their culture as a whole is classified as purely Greek. And of course, you should know better than to quote Hammond, who explicitly considers the Macedonians Greek. Maybe you should read more of his books, especially the latest ones...

8. The peoples of Macedonia remained a mixture, evidenced by their contrasting make - up compared to the 'gracile' build of Greeks. It was in Macedonia, and not in Argos, or Thessaly that the Macedonians solidified more compactly into a people.

What mixture? What contrasting make-up? Where did you find any evidence to that? Did you find ANY ancient who claimed that the Macedonian culture was "multiethnic"? Actually the cities of Athens, Corinth, Syracuse and Hallicarnassus were much more multiethnic than any Macedonian city. It does not matter where the Macedonians solidified as a people... what matters is that they boasted a Hellenic identity, a fact which cannot be refuted, however you mask it behind arguments about “political agendas”, “cultural admiration”, “unscholarly misquotes” or “lies”! Seriously now.... apart from thinking it possible yourself, where did you come across any mentioning of a multicultural Macedonia, where every ethnicity was free to express its identity? Don't mix up current situation in FYROM with ancient Macedonia... there were no "Illyrian Macedonians", “Thracian Macedonians" or “Greek Macedonians” cohabiting Pella in perfect harmony with the “ethnic Macedonians”...

GK1973 (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not proposing that literary sources are useless, merely that we should not interpret them at face-value. What you say is correct, that the evidence suggests that the Macedonians Royal house aspired a Greek identity, whether this was due to actual lineage, a political ploy or to prove their sophistication. What I am suggesting that needs to be improved in the article is the fact that at the moment it reads like a "Greek or not" debate. I propose that that the issue is more complex than that. The 'migration' spoken of by ancient historians could be an illustrative, yet simplified, account of how hellenic culture spread to Macedonia, and spawned the people of macedonia. The tale of Argos, etc, is illustrative. Just like that tale of Goths migrating from Gotium to Scythia. It is not my imagination, nor a 'fringe thoery' . Although I must admit that the quotes i am about to give are not specific to macedonians, they illustrate the general concensus of current archaeologists, linguists and pre-historians about the spread of peoples.

Archaeologists today are much more inclined to think in terms of models of interaction, where contact between neighbouring and plitically independent communities proved influential for the devevlopment of customs and beliefs". Renfrew . Archaeology and Language.

About Macedonians speaking Greek. Different ethnic groups can speak the same langauge. Pg 216

"there was no need to explain culture change exclusively in terms of migration and population replacement". "Ethnic spreads can involve either the spread of a language to speakers of other languages or the spread of a population. Massive population spread or demographic replacement has probably been a rarity in human history"

The other question which remains is did the rest of Macedonia see itself as Hellenistic. In all probabilty, we cannot answer this question because we have little to no evidence. You doubt that the Macedonians were multi-ethnic. Ok. But the identity which the leading elite portrays does not equal that of the common peoples. This does not mean that people lived in a utopian fairy land, there were subject, slaves and rulers. But to state that a Greek people called Macedonians moved and planted themselves in lower Macedonia, as you might see, does not fit in with todays thinking about ethnogenesis.

Lastly, what was "Greek" in the 5th century BC? Greece began in the 19th century. Acribing to membership in the Greek world need not have implied being an ethnic Greek, but to have been part of the civilized world, not a barbarian. Just like becoming a Christian state, or people, allowed access to the sophisticated diplomatic community of medieval Europe. To call the Macedonians Greek risks anacrhonism. The term "Greek", by its modern meaning, is a different thing to having part of the Hellenistic civilisation of Classical times. Hxseek (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This entry is very problematic - Ancient Macedonians were ethnically much closer to Illyrians

I have just read the first paragraph (and only the first) of this entry on Ancient Macedonians and I have found couple of mistakes.

Let me quote from it "Whether they were of ultimately Greek origin themselves or were later Hellenized continues to be debated by some scholars, but most of them advocate that the ancient Macedonians were of Greek origin."

This is not true - Ancient Macedonians were ethnically much closer to Illyrians - see some work of czech historian Antonín Bartoněk (for example his book - Odysseové na mořích historie - where it explicitly states this)

And other problematic part for encyclopedic entry is the following "..and Macedonians competed in the ancient Olympic Games, an athletic event in which only men of Greek origin were allowed to participate."

That is demagoguery, maybe even borderline propaganda. Macedonians were not allowed to compete on Olympic Games until Philip II of Macedon subdued ancient Greeks/Hellenes and enforced this privilege for Macedonians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.190.222 (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comment doesnt make sense. The quote you provided refers to the debate between the vast majority of scholars and you stick to the perception of a single one. Honestly this Czech historian is not even noteworthy and certainly not one of the leading authorities among scholars in relation to ancient Macedonian history. There is no ancient literary account verifying your assumption "ethnically much closer to Illyrians". If anything ancient sources always described them as two distinct, hostile people. Since there were Macedonians who participated in Olympics prior to Philip's era obviously your accusations about "demagoguery" and "borderline propaganda" are rather clumsy. Johnaldinho (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So you have counted opinions of all scholars dealing with this issue, and you are absolutely 100% positive that majority consensus is that Macedonians were of Greek origin? That is nonsense my friend. I have no stack in this as I am czech, but I see that you are greek so it may be difficult for you to look objectively on this issue. BTW: that author surely is worthy of mentioning, he is quite authority on this field - he is classical philologist - So he has good insight into this - in that book he is dealing also with differences in languages used by Ancient Macedonians and their Greek neighbors (BTW: do you know what was the macedonian form of the name of Philip II of Macedon? (Hint: no it surely wasnt Phillippos - and in this you can find one of the many Macedonian-Illyrian connection). Among other universities Bartonek lectured even on Cambridge. (Albeit his main expertise is Mykenology - I will give you that)

About Macedonians who participated in Olympics prior to Philip's era - being intellectually disshonest again? Let me ask you this way - were regular Macedonians allowed to compete on Olympics, before Phillip's conquest? No they were not. There might have been some exceptions, like is the case with some Thracians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.190.222 (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you should make an account. Discussing with IPs is always a little bit awkward and sometimes used by existed users to push their opinions. Then you can search the already lengthy articles that address these issues in detail. Going again and again over the same discussions is a little bit tiresome. Yet, if you cannot find an answer regarding your objections, I will compile you one. Lastly, look for more sources, since trying to persuade a schooled crowd of the prominence of a fringe theory is impossible. First you have to be able to prove that what you are advocating is no fringe theory but a widely accepted alternative. Last, but no least, be ready to support your claims. An argument such as "regular Macedonians were not allowed to compete on Olympics before Phillip's conquest" will be questioned and you will have to provide for. So, find one ancient source which proposes that and you may have a case. Present a modern historian who proposes that and you have an easilly disputed theory. Anyways.. if you want to make a case, compile your sources, look in our prior discussions for answer and then we can get down to it. By the way... since you are a Czech, why are your only 3 contributions in this discussion page? (no disrespect meant, only to show you how easy it is for your motives to be questioned) GK1973 (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Olympic Games

I am removing the statement that only Greeks were allowed to compete in the Olympic games because many competetors were NON-Greeks, including Romans, Macedonians, Thracians, and Armenians:

   * Tiberius (steerer of a four-horse chariot)[15]
   * Nero (steerer of a ten-horse chariot)
   * Varastades, Prince and future King of Armenia, (last known Ancient Olympic victor (boxing) during the 291st Olympic Games in the fourth century.

Mactruth (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That was much much later, after the Roman conquest (146 BC). Originally, only Greeks were allowed to compete. The sources also tell us that the kings of Macedon were allowed to compete as far back as the 5th century BC. What are you trying to do here? Do you think it's not obvious? --Athenean (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Precedence and weasel words

As the article is about Ancient Macedonians and modern research is based on ancient material, why "modern discussions" section takes precedence over the original ancient sources? Also, as per WP:AWW, the use of "some people say" is discouraged. The bits about "some scholars" debating their identity, need work. They give the wrong impression. Most scholars (practically all of them) do not debate on this. In addition, theories of people like Eugene Borza have been disproved (many works by him, are dated before Andronikos' discovery of Philip II's tomb) and are not accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. He is not even a serious scholar, by any standards (example) and he retired. I'll give some time to debate on this and then we'll decide on how to proceed with needful changes. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding this bit by Borza, since his statements or "statements" are conflicting. The "highlanders" or "Makedones" of the mountainous regions of western Macedonia are derived from northwest Greek stock [...] the origin of the Macedonians lies in the pool of proto-Greek speakers [...]. Again, I'm not editing anything right now; I'll wait for others to comment on this.SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder. This will be edited soon. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your summary of Borza, as so often, confused the concepts of "being Greek" and "being of (proto-)Greek stock". Read more closely: only for a nationalist ethnic essentialist would these two concepts mean the same thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder: you've been told repeatedly to watch your language and others above me take notes. You certainly have a thing going on, with people not in agreement with your POV. Wikipedia is not anyone's personal playground. FYI, Borza's hypotheses before and after Andronikos' discoveries, are conflicting and in due time, this is going to be demonstrated here, with academic references. As for the statement, try not to distort everything by misquoting, in order to prove your POV. "Greek stock" is about the origins of the people. "Proto-Greek speakers" is a language pool with people from different stock (that were eventually hellenized). To illustrate this, several Africans belong in the french language pool, but they're not French. Stock is the walking, language is the talking. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's not play word games. You changed "do" with "would", after my response. Rephrasing changes everything. If this was a honest mistake from your side, I accept it. Nevertheless, I hope we clarified things about stock and language, walking and talking :) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, call it a clarification. I don't know if you think in essentialist terms (many people do, without being aware of it); if you don't, then you probably just weren't reading the Borza passage very carefully. Apart from that, no, I don't think we have clarified the issue; you apparently still don't understand the point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, I'll assume good faith. But you're right, we haven't clarified the issue as you don't seem to understand the humongous difference between stock and language.SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yaoza, yaoza FPatS (can I call you Fpats for short?), how many times did SQRT...etc summarise Borza? Was it really 'so often'? And is he really a nationalist ethnic essentialis? Otherwise, you are batting on a sticky wicket dear chap, your above comment makes little no sense. And SQRT...etc, I am sure changing 'do' with 'would' was just a friedly geasture, nah, probably not :-( Politis (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

SQRT5P1D2... your personal opinion doesn't matter, so don't waste space writing it. The fact that modern Balkanologists frequently use him as a source would in any case discredit your opinion Hxseek (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty to correct my nickname. I hope you don't mind. As for the rest: indulge us. Here are Google Scholar's results after 1993 (the official recognition of the state with the provisional name FYROM). The results include him as an author, as well as citations. There are 65 results, some of them irrelevant. I don't see any huge modern following. If you want more analysis, use AHCI and surprise yourself about Borza's impact. He's nothing more than a fringe historian. That's not what I think, but what the academic community thinks. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

SQRT5P1D2... Eugene Borza is not "fringe", as much as you would like him to be. The new book, just out... "Macedonian Legacies: Studies in Ancient Macedonian History and Culture in Honor of Eugene N. Borza" might be a clue for you. Included are articles by Anson, Carney, Burstien, and Paglia amongst others. It behooves you to counter his views rather dismiss him as fringe, because he does not bolster your POV. My university professors, as well as most other courses that touch on ancient Macedon would be surprised to hear he is considered fringe. Thank you. Gingervlad--Gingervlad (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

well put. Not to mention that SQRT5P1D2 based his claim on a "Google search". Doesn't even warrant discussion Hxseek (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello and sorry for not responding earlier, as I was abroad. The "fringe" is what the academic community now thinks. His influence is marginal and his controversial, conflicting newer claims (surprisingly, there is a shifting pattern during the last two decades, despite evidence to the contrary) are repeatedly disproved. Regarding the "Google" thing, Google Scholar is public. If someone wants more information and has access, the Arts and Humanities Citiation Index is here.

About points of view and arguing, as I'm involved in the Macedonia 2 arbitration case, I restricted myself from editing Macedonia-related articles. As this case enters the resolution phase, you can expect much more involvement from my part. Some drafts are already being made, with numerous past and present academic references. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

SQRT, again it is you that needs to show that Borza is considered fringe by those who work and study in his field of expertise. Please demonstrate where his influence is marginal and by whom? I did post on the Borza talk page with examples showing that he IS widely regarded. What evidence has been repeatedly disproved and by whom? What are the controversial new claims? Are you talking about the dating of Tomb II? Where has that been disproved? If you are going to say he is marginal and controversial (in the international community) it is on you to show this. Simply saying it does not make it so. And for comparison, Hammond could have the same thing said about him...but I never would. His contributions have been monumental. Where he is incorrect in his assessments, or there is disagreement..it doesn't require stating that he's "fringe". The same respect should be given to Borza. And as I pointed out, he is getting it in the form of the festschrift.

It is extremely unfortunate for him that some on the hypernationalist competing Macedonia websites (who can tell them apart doing a web search...until clicking them, one finds that they fall on either side of the ridiculous situation) have appropriated his work and misused it..it put a target on his back for the other side of the ridiculous situation to go after. Sadly I have watched this for a number of years. And I see it here.

AS I said, the academic community I know certainly does NOT consider Borza fringe. A google search does not show any "fringe" tendencies. Rather, if you want him dismissed as "fringe"..you need to show actual members of the academic community calling him so. I realise that you are in the midst of the arbtiration. But when it is over, you really must "show your work". This has pulled me out of long and dispirited lurking mode. gingervlad. Gingervlad (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Gingervlad. Of course, when the case is over and we have established guidelines, I'll focus on the articles. For now, just to keep you interested in Borza and his newer claims, you can read these [10] [11]. Spicing it up a bit, here's a recent list with more than 200 scholars, speaking with one voice. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Borza is not fringe, yet Borza does admit that the predominant theory about the origin of the ancient Macedonians is that they were of Greek stock. He just proposes that other theories (as always history is naught but a collection of educated theories) cannot be easily eliminated, as do we here in Wikipedia. Nevertheless, probability is the key point here, since as far as theories (better supported than the one that has the Macedonians not speaking Greek before the 5th century BC) are concerned the Romans were also of Greek stock and the Athenians were hellenized barbarians (since there is yet another controversy as to whether the Pelasgians were of Greek stock or not). Other theories have a Cretan clan having migrated to Macedonia even before the Macedonians, the Thracians being of proto-Greek stock (although clearly described in the ancient texts as barbarians), the Illyrians having been completely eliminated by late antiquity, Egyptian and Phoenician migrations taking place in prehistoric Greece, the Greek alphabet being derived from the Phoenician one, the Phoenician alphabet being derived from the Greek one, the civilization of Knossos being non-Greek, the civilization of Knossos being definitely Greek, etc etc etc etc... Please, stop using Borza as a source which provides a definite conclusion, for you all know that he does not, so this whole conversation is pointless. Borza stands for none of the above POVs. His theories are considered possible, yet the probability of the Macedonians not being of Greek stock low, albeit existent... GK1973 (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Allow me a correction: his newer theories, are not considered possible, especially in the light of more recent archaeological findings. Stating the greekness of ancient Macedonians in his older works, is stating the obvious. For a preview, I suggested these [12] [13] in my above comment. I understand that he was a favorite of the Slavic side, until they read this. Some are still blissfully unaware of it and they keep mentioning him as a credible source. They are also unaware of Alexander's victory in Granicus ("Alexander, the son of Philip and the Greeks..."), which ends every discussion. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

SQRT..what newer theories..and how are they considered not possible? As for dragging the modern situation into a talk page about history millennia old..this is precisely what shouldn't be done. It is neither here nor there in regards to this. If one of your counterparts from "the other side" were to post something in the same vein, I would call them on it as well. Again, though, I ask you to actually name the "newer" theories before you dismiss them and the new discoveries that render whatever the newer theories are. As for the Macedonia-evidence site, sadly, once again, a specific agenda driven site rehashing the same tired argument about the MODERN situation showing us that, yes, the modern nation of Macedonia is doing something (and perhaps that link and your discussion about modern Slavs belongs in the article about the modern nation of Macedonia...why is that here on the talk page of "Ancient Macedonians"? The letter from the scholars is great and the articles from Hatzopoulos from 1999 and 2002 are nice to read again, but what does that have to do with information for 2500 =/- years ago? Seriously..., in regards to this article, who cares! Your comment certainly renders your neutrality moot.

(edited to fix paragraph) I've no horse in that race. I'm not a Slav. Nor a Greek. Just someone who finds the ancient Macedonians and the Hellenistic period interesting. Again, though, it isn't sufficient to simply state something vague and then throw up yet another link to yet another website about a modern pi***ng match. Sorry if that seems rude, however, your problem with Borza seems to be that his work has been appropriated by your "enemy". If there is some Illyrian or Thracian mix in the ethnogenesis of the Macedonians, why does this threaten you? It would make perfect sense that a proto-Greek population in close proximity would also absorb some influence from it's northern neighbours.

Are you are talking about his, and others, as well, view on the occupants of Tomb II? gingervlad Gingervlad (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought about not granting this comment with a response, due to rudeness and jumping to conclusions ("information from 2,500 years ago", "pissing match", "enemy", "threaten"). But it would be rude not to respond.

Anyway, scholars in History and Archaeology work with information from ancient times. If you are aware of a different working method, please enlighten us. The real test of an academic is how to collect bits of information and present a valid theory. Theories can be proved and disproved. Acceptance by other members of the academic community, shows one's impact. This is not a vague concept: there are tools to measure one's impact. When your low-probability (so to speak of) non-consistent theories are disproved and have marginal impact on other scholars of our era, that's fringe. Poor choice of a word? Don't like the word? Substitute with a synonym.

If you do have any counter-arguments after reading Hatzopoulos' articles (mentioning Borza's newer claims, since he took a U-turn in some matters during the last two-three decades), please present them here. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

SQRT, I agree THIS article should deal with information +/-2500 years ago. Which is why I object to your bringing the modern politics into it, which you have with that whole link. There were no Slavs, no Greek national government. You misread my point. We should ONLY be dealing with information that addresses those 2500 years ago. As for my rude words. Apologies for you taking that personally. After all this discussions in the arbitration I would think you would understand why this would be objectionable in an ancient context, where none of this ever existed..and introducing it only further serves to drag this article into it. There shouldn't even be a mention of the Slavic people on this page. Nor should the misappropriation of Borza by them (or ANY scholar by either side) be an issue. It has NOTHING to do with it, in this context. If you have other links that don't involve the modern conflict that is great. Hatzopoulos is an extremely good source (though not the only one). A POV site should not be, though that one will be interesting to watch if scholars other than Miller contribute. It is his site, he owns the domain. Who is behind it and why don't they identify themselves? Do you understand what I am saying here? I would say the exact same thing to anyone who pushed a pro-ROM (for your clarity), Albanian, Bulgarian, etc, etc...they just are not as pervasive. gingervlad Gingervlad (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

GK1973. A fair assessment of Borza. And much more productive. This kind of post can lead to a better consensus than outright dismissal. Thank you. gingervlad Gingervlad (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So as not to be misunderstood... SQRT5P1D2, Borza accepts that the probability of the Macedonians being essentially Greeks (not just proto-Greeks) is much higher than any other alternative he proposes. He even says that would it be possible to establish the exact form of the Macedonian speech before the 5th century, it would be much easier to come to a definite conclusion (modern findings already point at Greek here too...). The other alternative he proposes, he mostly uses to cover the possibility of Herodotus' account of the Macedonian invasion to be false or misunderstood. Most scholars nowadays are firm in their belief that the Macedonians spoke Greek and were as Greek as the Thessalians or the Thebans (most have to understand here that all this fuss about the Macedonians being different because of their governmental system or the rural, pastoral society is pointless, since kingship is not alien to Greek matters of the time, especially to Dorian-Macedonian (according to Herodot) states and that most Greek states of the Greek peninsula were pastoral and NOT maritime). Yet, alternative theories such as Borza's do exist and are NOT considered fringe but of a very low probability to depict the actual truth. It is true that these theories were much more widespread before the mid 20th century, when archaeology in the region was not yet as developed as it is today. Most scholars did not have access to all the classical texts we have today, so they missed much of our ability to compare and juxtapose a huge collection of ancient (seemingly relevant or irrelevant) texts, so as to arrive to safer conclusions. It is very easy to misunderstand (and mistranslate) ancient Greek texts, if you try to do the job based on nowadays English, Greek or any other way of expression, especially when it comes to matters of "ethnicity", "language", "affiliation" etc. Anyways... as I have already mentioned, history is a collection of theories, not axioms, and we strive to categorize them by probability. Archaeology sometimes helps, sometimes even makes things more difficult. Being absolute is most times a mistake, yet on the other hand, giving too much credence or weight on low probability theories is also a mistake. As you can see, I am also a strong proponent of the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians, yet attacking Borza or blindly refusing even the remote probability of alternative theories to be (even partially) correct is not to my liking. They are based on a centuries old bibliography which denotes some existent weaknesses in the primary sources. GK1973 (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Great. But we're talking about a living person. He also has access to research and evidence from the last three decades. His current scientific impact is minimal. His current views are marginal. His theories are disproved. Low probability? Alternative? Your choice of words. I prefer to be blunt about this person's work (NOT about the person). Read also my comment above. Also, if you read greek, get "Philologos" issues 134 and 135. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We actually agree in essence. I just disagree with your calling Borza fringe. Alternative theories are not always fringe, nor is the one that the ancient Macedonians MAY have been non-Greeks hellenized sometime between the 9th and the 6th century BC. Do not forget that according to Herodot the Athenians were barbarians hellenized by the Macedonians, during the so-called Dorian invasion (According to Herodot, Pelasgians were barbarians). Does this make Athenians less Greek? Or should we find a Greek "Lucy", an ancestor to every Greek there ever was? Borza does not dispute the Hellenic identity of the Macedonians in the historic years of Greek antiquity, he is talking about times we and he, unfortunately, know very little about. What I am trying to say is that not being included in the Danaoi of the 12th century BC does not exclude someone from the Greek world in the 6th century BC. Macedonians were certainly a Greek people AT LEAST since the 6th century BC (according to archaeological finds and supporting literature). Yet, we cannot tell what was the case before that. According to myth the Macedonians moved to the area sometime in the 9th or 10th century BC, yet the area (of early Macedonia) was inhabited long before that from peoples we cannot really identify and conclusively categorize. GK1973 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

--> Yes, we can. Archaeological and literary findings point to mixed Illyrian and Thracian tribes. Were these people exterminated by the Macedonians (even if they en masse migrated from wherever, and were Hellenes from the outset), - no Hxseek (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent points, again, GK1973. gingervlad Gingervlad (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

'And for comparison, Hammond could have the same thing said about him...but I never would. His contributions have been monumental. Where he is incorrect in his assessments, or there is disagreement..it doesn't require stating that he's "fringe" - Gingervlad

Ah but you're too late! This has already happened but for a different reason, of course: Hammond's argument that the Macedonians were Greek-speaking. And no no no, don't think you can slip away so easily just because you're an "outsider"! We've had "neutrals" tell us that really, O. Masson "isn't that great" because the "Greek character of the Macedonian onomasticon is obvious" to him. It's somewhat close to insanity, isn't it? One envisages articles in such areas (Macedonia is, unfortunately, not the only one) that would please most, if not all, editors. ;P 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would I want to "slip away"? I'd like an article about the Ancient Macedonians. Not about whatever the heck is going on there now. That means from either and all sides, as I said above. I am an outsider with a strong interest in ancient Macedonia as it was, free from ANY modern political feeling. This seems impossible. My initial reason for posting at all was reading Borza called "fringe". You will notice that I did not call Hammond fringe at all. I own books by both, as well as many others. I am interested in the Persian connections, the marriage of Gygaea to Bubares...and the somewhat ignored influence and cross-cultural connections of the Daskyleion satraps. As well as Macedon's relation with it's non-Greek neighbours. How interconnected were they really? Was Philip II part Illyrian? And what of the earlier kings? What kind of intermarriages, if any, did they have with the other nations around them. We know that Philip married outside of his own people.

The Macedonians were a unique peoples. This is not to say that they weren't "Greek" or from proto-Greek stock, I think they probably were, at least in part, but in the effort to make them either one or the other, the actual Macedonians seem to be forgotten. A rich and fascinating culture. Now if the papers could get released faster than they have been, that would be a bonus! Especially Agios Athanasios!

Which takes me to the letter that SQRT posted to. I agree that the Republic of Macedonia has been appropriating symbols. But..again this is modern politics. And I am bothered by that site for some reason. Stephen Miller owns the domain, it is registered in his name. So I have to assume he is behind the whole thing. Why not be up front about it? It's just a bit weird. I think the scholars are well within their rights to protest the misappropriations. But how does that reflect on ancient Macedonians. And I do have a question. It was stated there that the name Alexander was found 1000's of time in ancient Greece. Exactly how ancient? And which part? The only famous one I can think of was the King's list from Corinth...that is one not from Macedon before Alexander I. If anyone can point me to a list or study that shows if any of the thousands were before the rise of Macedon I'd be grateful. Thanks. gingervlad ..oh, if someone wants take my username and infer I am somehow Slavic because of the vlad in it...it's an old nickname and is a joke about red-headed vampires. Gingervlad (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, smilies don't always help to get the intended tone across. 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh. *blushes in shame* I missed the ;P. Well played! gingervlad Gingervlad (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Tag

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (May 2009)

I agree with whoever placed this. I have been trying to improve this article for some time. I propose that we integrate the 'ancient sources' and modern theories. There is no need to present them seperately. They can be combined into a common thesis.

Secondly, let's stop trying to prove and disprove things. Specifically, regarding the origins, the section should start off with the most commonly accepted current theories, mention supposed geographic origins, as well as presumed ethnic and linguistic background of the makedones and the regions as a whole. Then we should add clarifiers and caveats to the above theories as expressed by mainstream authors. Just present the info, and leave it at that (rather than trying to enforce our own conclusions onto the article and readers). Hxseek (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the tag for reasons I hope are obvious; you missed the addition during the "embargo", which was unfortunately a necessary one for WP:SYNTH reasons. ;). 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Borza

@IP editor. Although I disagree with Borza on many of his points regarding the "ethnicity" or the origins and language of the Macedonians (I firmly believe that they were of Greek stock and that their language was also clearly Greek), if we are to mention him, we have to do it properly. Read here [14] Borza's theories as he presented him "in the Shadow of Olympus". Of course he always claims that a Greek origin is the most probable theory, yet he does dispute it. Btw, it would be nice if you set up an account in Wikipedia. Conversing with IPs is always awkward... GK1973 (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Pages 92-93 only mention the Macedonian language. More page numbers need to be added to the reference citation. Corpsicle (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

Can you please state the points where you disagree?

(pov tag. This article has now again been torn and pulled so far into Greek POV advocacy that only a radical rewrite from scratch could help.)

This is too general and too dismissive a comment.

Both theories are presented (about the Macedonians being a Greek tribe or not) and to my opinion, the theory that they were not Greeks as well as that their language was not Greek has been actually given too much credence. So, what part of this article do you dispute?

Yet, I do agree that the article has to expand to encompass all Macedonian tribes, an onomastikon etc.

GK1973 (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is my question too. All the important points are cited and I made no major change. So, FP should explain the use of the tag. Does he consider POV the ancient sources? Or the language section because this is what I slightly changed.. - Sthenel (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The main problem, as has been the case for a long time, is that editors insist on presenting the whole thing in just those terms you used yourself just now: "both theories". That is: the naive misunderstanding that "Greekness" is a binary, essential property that a population either has or doesn't have. This essentialist, distorted perception makes it impossible for them to understand – let alone summarise correctly – the finer nuances of the academic debate, and provides a facile opportunity for marginalising and distorting the presentation of those authors who actually propose more sophisticated positions, or to reduce their treatment to that of a strawman caricature (Borza among others, who is forever misrepresented in these articles). There is also the perennial tendency for editors to insert tendentious weighing language about what is "predominant" in scholarship. And in Sthenel's latest edits, there is again the bad old habit of citing bits from ancient sources as arguments for a modern position (i.e. for the "Greekness" thesis, what else. [15]; note the "besides", which clearly marks the statement as an intended argument); this makes it a classical case of WP:SYNTH. This "SYNTH" tendency is, of course, almost unavoidable, if all an editor cares about in writing an article is to bolster up his favorite POV thesis, which is invariably the case with this type of editors. That they are then careles or clueless enough to cite Herodotus as a witness about Alexander the Great just goes to demonstrate how genuine their interest in ancient history really is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do not see the problems you propose. The mainstream thesis (among its proponents of course also E. Borza) is that the ancient Macedonians were another ancient Greek tribe, speaking Greek. There is nothing naive about arguing or commenting on the cultural - national identity of an ancient people, although this is but one of the aspects that should be touched and not the only one. If you think that there are other opinions not discussed properly in this article (such as the Illyrian or Thracian thesis or any more complex hypothesis) feel free to discuss them further and we will see. To my opinion, the main problem in this article is that it goes to great lengths as to the (marginally accepted) non-Greek hypothesis, forcing the Greek hypothesis to be omnipresent. Too much fuzz is being made over something that academically makes little sense, not because of the little value it holds but because of the acceptance of its veracity. As I proposed above, we should insert more information on the ancient Macedonians, information nobody yet has deigned add. Of course, adding this data will raise even more objections by the POV pushing community that cares but little for any academic seriousness. Adding information on the non Argead Macedonian tribes and kingdoms, their culture and language, the archaeology that is abundant, the history of these clans and the myths, legends and accounts we have, will only be accused of Greek POVness. Yet, it is worth trying, if we want to get over pointless feuds. As for ancient quotes, they are necessary in any article about antiquity, although in my opinion they should be given in the sources section and put into flowing text inside the article. Maybe, if we expand this article, as we should, the points about the Greekness or non-Greekness of the ancient Macedonians will stand out less. About Sthenel, he is just an editor and thus his edits can and will be edited by us and other editors. I also didn't like some of his edits and omissions and I will also soon edit this article. He may have just made a mistake or he might be really clueless... Anyways, this is why we have this discussion page... I will soon occupy myself with this article and any input will be welcome. But if you didn't dispute the article before Stethnel, you shouldn't dispute it now. Just correct whatever you disagree with and we will see. GK1973 (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You are precisely confirming my diagnosis. You are too attached to the Greek-vs.-Non-Greek dichotomy to cognitively let go of it for a minute; you are still distorting Borza, who says no such thing as what you claims he says; and you are still going on about what you feel is "mainstream" and "marginal" (judging which is, of course, a futile attempt as long as you don't understand what those authors say.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect... 1.The article just present the theories and does not arrive to any conclusion. 2.Ancient sources are essential for an article about an ancient people, whether they talk about the Greekness of Macedonians or not. We won't ignore ancient writers who happen to talk about the Greekness of Macedonians, to give priority to modern historians and their "modern" positions. 3.The way that you have stuck on the word besides is really weird. You could use as well instead. 4.Borza's positions are presented exactly as they are. 5.I see that your thesis on this article is that it should be more pliable, but you didn't do the same for even more disputable articles that you have completely (and illegally) under your control, anyone can see that the articles for Arvanites and Souliotes are nothing else but Albanian propaganda, due to your tutelage. 6.Again what you said is too general, state the points that you disagree in order to find another way of presentation. 7.I don't think that your mission here is too decide about the neutrality of an article, ignoring anyone else. - Sthenel (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

FP...again playing doctors? I confirmed what? Have you ever read Borza? What part of Borza's position did I distort? Please enlighten me... It seems to me that your grasp regarding ancient Macedonia ranges from Wiki debates to random internet "site"seeing... You had better stop shouting empty words and start some constructive input like I suggested we should all do... Assaulting my knowledge on the matter, especially with such amateurish arguments, is not something that can lead to anything good... If you want a debate on Borza we can have it someplace, but you had better read his work first (read it again if you think you already have and see for yourself whether he is critical or dismissive and which opinion he finds most possible). Until then, it would be better if you had something to comment on my suggestions as to the extension of the article.

Sthenel, FP accused you of mixing up Alexander I with Alexander III (the Great) and he is perfectly right about that. The word "besides" was also awkwardly inserted. There is noone "illegaly" holding any articles hostage nor deciding on POV. You can as well remove FP's tag if you like, I endorse it, since he fails to give any credible arguments as to why he has placed it there anyways (and I am also not someone, whose opinion is more important than that of other editors ). Please don't use FP's tactics of discrediting anyone he views as an "opponent". We are supposed to work together and not verbally assault each other's intelligence or knowledge. You have made some big mistakes and he has behaved childishly. So, please, let's work together and stop these childish games. I also disagree with some of your edits, I just don;t call you names... GK1973 (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read Borza, and he most certainly does not say that "the ancient Macedonians were another ancient Greek tribe, speaking Greek". If you think that what he says amounts to anything that could be summarised like that, you haven't understood him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear FP, always too eager to draw conclusions... I never said that Borza said this. I said that Borza is a proponent of this hypothesis/thesis, which, in his books, he admits to be the most possible. Why are you always so ready to misinterpret people's words? How would you call a historian who says that most possibly the ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe, if not a proponent of the said hypothesis? History is full of suppositions, not certainties. I, for example, do not say that the Athenians were certainly of Greek origin.. They are described as barbarians in ancient literature more times than the Macedonians! Their pre-Dorian history is barbaric if one takes into account that Herodot, for example (and against other writers), insists on the barbarity of the Pelasgians... But the question here is not what my opinion is...it is what Borza's opinion is. And he of course views the Greek hypothesis critically, yet he finds it the most possible one. Of course you have to know that "mainstream" does not mean 100% certainty or acceptance. It is about odds. GK1973 (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Borza not only doesn't literally use that phrase; he also says nothing that could be interpreted as endorsing or proposing such a hypothesis, as far as I'm aware. From what I remember when I read the book (and re-reading just now to the extent it's online), he says something substantially different. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

GK1973, with due respect for your sound input, just to say that Borza, to the best of my knowledge, is the darling of many Skopje academics and blog sites precisely because he differentiates the Greeks from the Ancient Macedonians. He would have otherwise remained quite anonymous if they had not pumped up his run-of-the-mill research. Admitedly, many take his views as a cue that, therefore the Slavs of the Republic descend from the Macedonians of Alexander, but that is not the issue here :-). Politis (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

OK.. I will come to this when I am done with the edits I am currently making. (Don't worry, nothing to do with Macedonia or any of its derivatives...). Dear Politis, the people of RoM, who desperately wish to connect their history with that of the ancients have no clue regarding what Borza stands for... He has viciously dismissed any of their claims and has boldly stated that the inhabitants of RoM have absolutely no connection with the ancient Macedonians... If they knew what the man has written, they would never quote him...GK1973 (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks GK1973, as you can imagine, I have not readily found Borza quotes on the internet dismissing their claims. Good luck with your edits. Do you know when the term 'Ancient Macedonians' was first introduced? Politis (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that many in the Republic strongly reject the ancient link. Their greatest living sculptor, Tome Serafimovski, does not produce statues related to the ancients because, as he proudly states, 'I am a Slav'.

If I have made mistakes, I would like to discuss them and find alternative solutions all together. But we have to talk about particular points in the article instead of being tendentious. We can't ignore positions and sources which are very important and have marked the progress of this topic, just because they favor the theories of the Greekness of Macedonians, like Pella katadesmos. As for Borza, his point is not to take the part of the one or the other side, but to make it clear that the backround of Macedonians is a complicated issue, and his claims have been used in this way in the article. The article isn't POV. But if we could say it is, this would be due to the lack of the use of modern scholars who straingthen the Greek thesis. - Sthenel (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I am watching from a certain distance the recent edits in the article. Some time ago, after a "skirmish" I had with 3rdAlcove, I think we reached a version of the article generally acceptable: mentioning the prevalent theory, but also don't hiding those endorsing a different opinion like Borza. I believe that Sthenel's edits were a bit rushy and unwise. For instance, in terms of structure, why was the precedence given to the ancient sources, and the modern debate was marginalized? At the same time, I have to stress that Fut.Perf's reaction (label the article as POV) was also "sentimental", and not as cool-headed as one would have expected from an editor of his experience and caliber—bringing the issue in the talk page and asking for feedback as GK did wouldn't have been better, instead of reacting with a POV template to some edits he did not like? In any case, I personally express my confidence in GK's rewriting, judging from his encyclopedic integrity, dialectical straightforwardness and his strong scientific background (I don't know him personally, but all these characteristics are obvious during his presence in Wikipedia). I just want to point out one thing: IMO, if we want to have an encyclopedically comprehensive and "fair" article, we have to give due ground to those opposing the prevalent theory about ancient Macedonians' origins, after, of course, we make clear this prevalent theory. Those supporting the close relation between ancient Macedonians and ancient Greeks have nothing to be afraid of, if they offer to the altera pars the place it deserves, as a strong minority voice within the context of the relevant modern scientific debate.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but I can only repeat: this won't work as long as everybody thinks and argues in terms of this oversimplified dichotomy ("Greek" versus "Non-Greek"; "the dominant hypothesis" versus "the other hypothesis"). In the actual literature, neither is there this neat dichotomy, nor is there one "side" that is clearly "prevalent". Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

My main concern is with the primary source quotefarm at the top and the fact that modern secondary sources are relegated to a small section near the bottom. This doesn't feel right. While quotes from primary sources are important, I feel discussion from modern secondary sources should take precedence. Perhaps we can reverse the order and only keep the most salient quotes? Other than that, I agree with yannis and future. Due weight should be given to all serious, academic viewpoints per NPOV. --Athenean (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Athenean. The prevalence should be to the modern scientific debate. Without being a specialist on the topic (I can be some kind of "amateur expert" as regards Athenian and Theban hegemony, but not with respect to Ancient Macedonia!), allow me to answer you Fut. that the issue is not here about dichotomizing and oversimplifying or not the dialogue of the scientific community, but examining if there is or not a consensus. And, as regards history research, I know that in most cases where there is not a unanimity, a majority of historians and experts supports one thing, and a minority another thing. At least, this was my experience while trying to shed light to various obscure issues I dealt with while rewriting ancient Greece-related articles. And I always presented both views, underlining the prevalent theory in each case if there was one. Now, in our case the issue is the connection between the ancient Macedonians and the ancient Greeks. And indeed the current version of the relevant section does not give a clear idea of what is exactly the debate about; which are the different "camps"; and what are the most recent trends. Subsequently, if indeed the sources in citation 26 agree on the Greek origins of ancient Macedonians, then there is a prevalent theory, and this should be clear in the article. If this is not the case, and the debate is more complex than I understand, and than it is presented, then improve the section, and try to fix the problem sharing your knowledge with us.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That list of refs was added by User:The Cat and the Owl some time last year. I haven't got all those books to check, obviously, but apparently the ref list is related to the material Cat/Owl kept on his own user page, and if the refs are supposed to be related to the passages quoted there, I am highly skeptical. The footnote is supposed to support the claim that scholars agree the Macedonians were "of Greek origin". Now, how many of the passages quoted are actually about that question? In fact, what does it even mean for a population to be of Greek origin (as opposed to: be Greek, plain and simple?) – Among the authors quoted are, e.g., Victor Ehrenberg, who in the Cat/Owl's user page snippet is only saying that "Alexander and the Macedonians carried Greek civilization into the East" – nothing about "origin" whatsoever; Robin Lane Fox, who is quoted as merely saying that the kings "maintained that their Greek ancestry traced back to Zeus" etc. – nothing about the actual ethnic origins of the population; etc. etc. This is the result when people edit with agendas. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So in this case, the thing to do would be for all interested editors to gather as much material from secondary, scholarly sources on the ancient Maceodnians' origins as they can, and present and discuss it here, so that a consensus can be reached in this talkpage. --Athenean (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Everybody talks about my edits, but which of my edits was so huge? I'm not responsible for the structure and everything else in this article. I agree with Athenean, more material from secondary sources about the origins and the language. But I'm pretty sure that nobody will help. I hope I'll be proved wrong. - Sthenel (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the ancient sources, no direct quote of Demosthenes is provided (although I added it, it was removed). Rather, his accounts are skimmed over that they were 'politically motiviated'. As numerous scholars have pointed out, such a charge (that Phillip was not Greek) does not just precipitate out of thin air ! Clearly there must have been some sentiments of doubt existing amongst contemporaries. Yet this second point is also conveniently left out. The article needs to be more centred. I totally agree with Future Perf that it is not a matter of GReek vs non-Greek here. There were shades of grey Hxseek (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Fut Perf is confusing me. On the one hand he advocates against a "Greek" versus "Non-Greek" approach in the article. That is fine. I agree with him. On the other, he places a POV tag (I have nothing against that either) but, on the grounds that, "This article has now again been torn and pulled so far into Greek POV advocacy". Such comments tend to create negative stereotyping and should be avoided at all cost. Regarding the article per se, it can be argued, that there might be too many quotes enforcing an urgency to prove the Greekness of the Ancient Macedonians. I concur with Hxseek's questions and shades of grey approach. Politis (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Politis. I unfortunately have not the time for it, but I think a re-do of the origins section is required. Although some might disagreee, I do not see why modern and 'ancient' theories need separation. As for any other people, our current platform of understanding relies on literary, archaeological and linguistic data/ sources. There is no need to dichotomize the article, as if to arrive at different conclusions. Rather an integrative approach appeals to me. This article is being needlessly embued with modern sentiments. What we must remember is that they were an ancient people, now long gone (politically). Hxseek (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't see why ancient and modern theories need separation? Don't you see there is a gap of two millenia there? That makes a WORLD of a difference. If you don't understand the difference between primary and secondary sources, what can I say...--Athenean (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's work on the article instead of having endless discussions here... - Sthenel (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Athenean, I'm acquainted with the so-called primary sources. But such sources aren't FACT. They need to be seen in light of the biases and prejudices that their writers held. And corroboration with other types of data, such as archaeology, or what have you, would only enrich the article. What I'm proposing is that these 'acneitn sources' be worked into a main body of discussion, rather than merely cataloguing a series of quotes Hxseek (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hexseek in that. I also think it is awkward to just catalogue quotes from ancient sources, which could as well be given in the reference section. Yet I have to also state that although bias, prejudice and sometimes lies are present in an ancient text, these texts remain our best and most respected advisors on matters of the time. Archaeology sometimes supports the essence (yet rarely the details) of the information we get from ancient texts but most times it is unable to provide us with much more than that. After all, ancient texts are also a great part of archaeology and anything non-textual may also suffer from bias, prejudice and myth.What is the difference between a decree found in Athens or Macedonia regarding a war, an alliance or a reigious event and another recited by Polybius, Arrian or Thucidides? Someone could claim that the latter writers' words have been corrupted by medieval scribes but whatever the differences between the texts we have and the absolute originals are not considered very important and their credence depends on many factors among which abundance of copies, quality of language etc. Yes it is extremely difficult to archaeologically documentate the "Dorian Invasion", since we cannot exactly tell what is Dorian and what was not! There is such an abundance in evidence of violent times, that we could easily have the evience in front of us and still not recognize it! And of course we have to take into consideration the cultural proximity of civilizations. Something "Mycenean" over something else "Mycenean" could be something Dorian over something Pelasgian, these people did not name their civilizations "Mycenean" wither. We talk about the "Minoans", but this is also a name we have devised, they could have called themselves something completely different. Anyways, my point is that ancient texts are the most valuable evidence we have on most matters of ancient times, noone would be able to reconstruct the path or history of Alexander the Great were it not for the writings of a Plutarch, an Arrian, a Rufus, a Polyaenus or a Frontinus... Archaeology comes always second to prove or disprove. GK1973 (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You're not wrong. It all depends whether you're a historian, a linguist, or an archaeologist. Hxseek (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it depends if you really care about what THEY (the ancients) said. Straight from the horse's mouth: "for I (Alexander I) myself am by ancient descent a Greek" (Herodotus IX,45,2). And a whole lot more here. Now, what was that question about ethnicity and "Greek POV" again? - Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.33.148 (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Let's take what the "ancients" say verbatim. Therefore, we all come from Adam and Eve, and the world was made in 7 days. Genius Hxseek (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

New Source?

Is this one WP:RS? Ancient Macedonians: Differences Between the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks Author J. S. G. Gandeto Publisher iUniverse, 2002 ISBN 0595233066, 9780595233069 Length 320 pages link here [16]. Read parts of it which I found interesting for the article. Instead of making our OR here there are some debates related to the facts discussed above by some wiki contributors Aigest (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not much of a source *the book

• [http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Macedonians-Differences-Between/dp/0595233066/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250081154&sr=1-2 the book again]
• Seems to be a slav macedonian nationalist.Megistias (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Page

• 245 , he relates Linear B to modern macedonian slavic language.

Megistias (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I see page 245 but all I can see is that John Chadwick (another scholar) maintains that view (anyway I did not see this argument used throughout the book, maybe it is in omitted pages). As for his credibility I would prefer other authors contradicting his claims rather than just simply classifying him as a Slav Macedonian nationalist (it is the same critique he directs to Daskalakis work in the introduction session). Up to that moment strictly speaking of WP:RS rules he remains as such (Although my personal opinion is that it is very difficult to find a NPOV author in this topic) Aigest (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Here he is Josif Grezlovski - Gandeto

• Real name, Josif Grezlovski
• Joseph Grezlovski - Gandeto the American-Slavomacedonian writer, resident in Florida, USA. Born in the village of Prespa Ljubojno. 1967. year immigrated to America, where he graduated. Currently working as a professor. Written in English and Slavomacedonian language.

On the Slavomacedonian language is written: • Videloto na Spasa (novel) <<<<<< • Muabeti (stihozbirka) <<<<<<< • Ko jagne (poem) <<<<<<< • Volcite od Trapers Blaf (novel) <<<<< For English readers wrote: • The ancient Macedonians: Differences between moves ancient Macedonians and ancient Greeks

• Gandeto
• Joseph, who now resides in Florida, was born in Lubojno, Macedonia. He immigrated to the United States in 1967, where he spent some time in Detroit and Chicago before finally settling in Miami.
• Not WP:RSMegistias (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a consensus before not to use Slav-macedonian and Greek sources in this article. If there is such than it is ok for me (no need to had a revival of old debates), otherwise excluding an author because of his/her ethnicity it is discriminatory don't you think? Aigest (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You can see that the book is not WP:RS from his claims.Others have tried to used him in the past as well.Megistias (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot at the moment access all the pages Megistias linked to, but I remember seeing the book before and for once I must agree with Megistias, this is not a good source. The author doesn't seem to have any academic standing or qualification for a work of this kind. From what I remember it was pretty amateurish. But please, Megistias, stop arguing about the authors nationality; that is quite irrelevant here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen all the book, but practically his claims are the ones put forward in this debate by Macedonian part. Although I don't know him as author (first time I noticed him) also we must note that not only them (Slav Macedonians authors) but also other just as you can see here Woodard 2008 [17] use the same kind arguments (historical sources mentioning Macedonian language) and more (see Katicic position in the same Woodard article). Although it is wrong to automatically link language with ethnicity I think Macedonian part has a point here.

P.S. Maybe part of Woodard article can be included in Ancient Macedonian Language article or in this article (It's OK for me to exclude Gandeto, I don't want to open a new debate on him, I am fully aware of nationalistic sources, as Fut can remember Ruches:) Aigest (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if he is not a recognised academic, it would not fulfill WP:RS, nor would it do the the intiguing discussions we have any justice Hxseek (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Woodard is OK, as long as he is cited properly.GK1973 (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I meant Gandeto 152.76.1.244 (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Article object.

Good Afternoon, dear Macedonians:)

I have to first apologize for my modest use of English language. I have a feeling that this article reflects only the debate which is dealt here in the talk page; it gives a summation of it, and doesn’t bother examining what these ancient Macedonians produced. The way I understand it, if the article doesn’t manage to state the Most Probable in its very start, without progressing in great lengths about its probability (which is what it now does), any progress will be impossible. Now, I had this strange dream last night: In the year of 2020, shortly after some strange wars that resulted in Greece’s dichotomy (a big part or its northern grounds was embodied in another nation), a new Greek government decided to adopt the name “New-York” for the newly (again) born nation, declaring that America’s New Yorkers originally came from bold old Athenians. Huge spirited troops of Athenians, scientists and ordinary citizens, made it clear in every possible form and in any possible forum that this was the truth, and that –at least- it should be mentioned as a “possible truth” whenever the origins of the American New York state where to be discussed. Shortly after, I was unwillingly transported in my dream to a wikipedia page called “New York”. The page was looking something like this: It started by proclaiming that New Yorkers are a tribe for which historians generally agree that, whether they originally spoke an English dialect or a distinct language, came to belong to the common English-speaking population in the American period [1], and moved on with something like that: Whether they were of ultimately American origin themselves or were later Americanized is debated by some scholars; however, the New-York governor family, claimed American descent from American West [2][3][4][5], and so on. Later on it also referred to some athletic games where strong muscled New-York inhabitants participated as “Americans”. [6] This went on and on, like if some elephants were trying to prove that they were elephants, and nothing else was stated in the whole article, apart from a mixing of proofs and claims regarding American origin of New York State and its citizens. Some foreigners were participating in the talk page of that article and were accusing the American editors of –among other bolder accusations- being narrow-minded. It was also suggested that referring to New Yorkers as American, should be prohibited since it was disputable. Furthermore, to ensure a ‘neutral position’, Americans were asked to not bring in the table (the article) huge amounts of citations on proofs of their position or on scholars supporting it, because of the need of ‘proportion’ and ‘justice’ (relative to any other view of the subject). At that time I woke up, and decided to practice what I had unconsciously learned in my sleep: I went to school (I’m over 40 but I still go to school) and presented to my mathematics teacher a new theorem regarding 1+1. I said that the obvious solution is 11, and backed up my proposition with some ancient (but also contemporary – you can find sources for ANY possible claim nowadays) sources (and my interpretation of them). Meanwhile, I managed to persuade some other students as well, and, ultimately, chaos was brought in the class. Till the end of the year, mathematics tuition was stalled and I was able to have my baths.

Most, if not all off ancient written sources manifest that ancient Macedonians were Greeks, at least from 6th century bc. They were mostly proclaimed as such from their contemporaries, and -according to almost everything we have found till today- they also adopted such a belief for themselves (for whom and for what we know), from 6th century onwards. Most, if not all archaeological evidence, demonstrates a Greek culture, Greek architecture, pottery, etc. All of the inscriptions found till today are in some form of Greek language, and most, if not all of their used names, can be categorized as of Greek origin. Having read the whole page, I haven’t seen anyone disputing the above. One by one, any of the above facts can be rightly questioned as inconclusive, but the probability that they are all together inconclusive is (logically) small. I also haven’t seen anyone raising valid objections about Aristotle and Democritus –among others- being Greeks as well (who were born in ancient Macedonia, didn’t belong exactly in the ‘Hellenistic’ era, and didn’t belong to any “Royal Family”), and I assume that having them as Greeks would contradict having ancient Macedonia as a disputable entity.

Logic dictates that, because of the above alone, the article should begin with something like this: “The Macedonians (Greek: Μακεδόνες, Makedónes) were an ancient Greek tribe which…”. This is what we know as Most Probable: History, especially ancient History, is mostly about probabilities, and this is a big probability according to most of our sources and scholarship. Then, the article should state that Theories of other probable Macedonian descent do exist, and it should state them as well, in a proportional (=logically smaller) article space. And then, at last, it should move on and get involved with ancient Macedonian Culture, ethics, history, accomplishments, intellectual production, etc. If this article hasn’t a positive idea regarding who these people were, don’t expect it to give any detailed account of what they produced, because at the time that any production of theirs will be talked, questions regarding where exactly this production belongs in historical terms will arise in the exact same way.

If anyone thinks of the term “Greek” as misleading in the above message, he can freely substitute it with the term “Hellenic”. Regards.--Thaalis (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Article

First off, excuse the bad form, I am confused as to how to get a header here.

Well, I went away for most of the summer and came back. The article is very different. If I may point out, the article reads as nothing more than a proof of the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians. Perhaps that should be the new title. There is little or no discussion of the material culture or or anything specific to them. As more and more information comes to light about these fascinating people, wouldn't it be better to actually discuss that more than an entire article that spells out the case for their Hellenic or origins, or not? This reads like a political statement, not an article on a specific group of peoples. Someone reading this article who wasn't familiar with the Ancient MAcedonians would come away not much wiser about them at all, except that they were Greek! No discussion of the rich burials or and just the passing mention of pottery and excavations, those only, again, to serve to proof that they were Greek. Sometime in the next few weeks I hope to start contributing to the article, with more about the known material culture. Would it be pointless? Is this article what concensus wants? I don't mean to sound negative, but this is very disheartening. Also, whoever redid the article, the bibliography at the bottom only includes Borza, who is not mentioned in the article any longer. I am not so concerned about their origins, but they were more than just the most northerly Greeks. Even if the article mentioned the differences or what was unique to them, that would be great. To not do so does them and history an injustice. Thanks. Gingervlad (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Unschool for correcting the header. Is putting it between ==header== the way to do it? Or /* header/* ? I see those now in the edit mode. Also thank you GK1973 for restoring my comment. I really appreciate it. By the way, have you seen the news about the find in the Eukleia temple in Aigai? Fun to speculate, but very interesting anyway. Gingervlad (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It was really interesting, wasn't it? GK1973 (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

---

---

Sources

The misrepresentation of sources continues. Sources referenced to support the 'undisputable Greekness' of the Macedonians, do not paint such a clear-cut picture. They do argue that Makedones is a Greek ethonym, but far from concluding the ethnic identity was Greek, Worthington, eg, states "the 'ethnicity' of the Macedonians will never be solved". Similarly, J V A Fine, who argues along similar lines, stresses that they were mingled with Illyrians and Thracians. Moreover, nearly all sources state that they were not seen as Greek before the 4th century and had little to do with "Greece" prior to this, and had a clearly different lifestyle. It is this which matters: how they were seen and how they themsleves lived. That a few "Mycaenean" pots were found dated to the 13th century doesn;t prove anything apart from that trade existed between north and south. No serious scholar these days would make a conclusion about identity based on a few pots ?

Moreover, the concept of a "Dorian invasion" from the north has been seriously questioned.

Why is there the need to sweep such qualifiers under the carpet ? Hxseek (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"ancient Greek tribe"

This seems to have been discussed to death on this tl;dr talkpage, and the end result seems to have been that the "Greek" is clearly up for debate: while this is true after a certain point, it may not have been so originally, and there a legit dispute in academia over this. "Ancient tribe" is hence less misleading. Moreschi (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well done on managing to add masses of different cites bundled into one ref. Doubtless hundreds of authors have referred to the Macedonians as Greeks in passing (as indeed my books on military history do, when discussing Alexander), but really, among scholars who have actually studied the knotty problem of Macedonian origins there would appear to be a genuine dispute. As the article itself makes plain. Moreschi (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No since the article clearly mentions that the academic consensus is that they were Greek. And there are tens of sources attesting to that. Whether they were "originally" Greek whatever that means is beside the point. After the 5th c. BCE they were completely Hellenized and that is well before the time of Alexander when they make it out of the limelight. To doubt their Hellenism is misleading as it may lead to people thinking they were not Greek by the 5th c. BCE.--Anothroskon (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And what is your definition of having actually "studied" the problem? I don't disagree that it is not sure whether they were originally of Greek origin but that is moot. By the 5th c. BCE they were Hellenized, to claim otherwise is to fly in the face of the evidence.--Anothroskon (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and? This is not the article on Alexander, where doubtless your arguments would have some relevance, and where citing about 6 biographies of Alexander would be admissible. This is the article on the ancient Macedonians: just as at Souliotes, no matter how Hellenized they became (by whenever date, but 5th century sounds perfectly plausible), it is misleading to call them "Greek" just because of Hellenization. In an article on the people we should not ignore disputed ethnic origin. In an article on 4th-century individuals that is of course fine, as by this stage Hellenization was doubtless complete. Moreschi (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Finally if you check the list of citations these include publications by RL Fox and NG Hammond who can be said to have actually studied the thorny issue as well as pubs from Oxford and Harvard univ press. The reason they are all referring to the Macs as Greeks is that it would be confusing to label them as anything else on account of the murkiness in their pre-5th c. origins.--Anothroskon (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I will propose a compromise to remove the word Greek and instead write: "an ancient tribe that by the 5th c. BCE was Hellenized".--Anothroskon (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem with that. And please remove the bios of Alexander from the reflist, those have no place here. Moreschi (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually object to that. Saying that they were Hellenized straight-up could be read by some they were not Greek at all. There were plenty Hellenized peoples in the 5th and 4th century BC. Hellenized Illyrians, Hellenized Thracians, and others. I can totally see readers from an unspecified neighboring country crowing "See? See? The were Hellenized, not Greeks!". I think like Moreschi said, in articles on historical ethnic groups where the group's ethnic origin is disupted, it is best to sidestep the question. That the anc. Macedonians had strong ethnic and cultural ties to the Greek city-states and fully Helenized by the 5th century BC emerges in the body of the article. We had a much worse situation in Souliotes, which was resolved only when this approach was used. --Athenean (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see where Athenean is coming from. It hadn't occurred to me that you could read "were Hellenized by X" could imply that they then definitively weren't Greek in the first place, but yes, on reflection, I see how that's plausible. This needs a more elegant work-around...let's see...Moreschi (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go...thoughts, guys? Moreschi (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And on a side-note, what do you say to doing something about that annoying quotefarm under "ancient sources" and actually trying to expand the ridiculously small "modern discussion" section? Moreschi (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. While ancient sources are important, preference should be given to modern secondary sources. Great work on the lede, by the way. Reads much better. --Athenean (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead is fine by me as it is now. Good job Moreschi and Athenean.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to Moreschi's second point. He is right. Many sources mention that they were Greek in passing, but what this article does not mention/ eloborate upon is that they often clarify such a statement, mentioning the evident cultural and general lifestyle differences and their probable heterogeneous origins. One is right to say that the question of 'origins' should not be the focus of the article, however it's nevertheless an interesting topic, and POV can be avoided if we take a so-called ethnogenesis approach and update our thinking from the 19th century, nationalist-driven platforms of culture-history and family-tree models of linguistics Hxseek (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it is the ethnogenesis hypothesis that is the product of nationalism-based thinking from the 19th century.

But, I agree that the focus on the question of origins should not be exaggerated (actually, 20th century findings have pointed to Greek cultural presence from early times, at least in Lower Macedonia). Antipastor (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha, that is quite amusing. Ethnogenesis theory was developed by Anglophilic scholars after the 1960s. So your first sentence is utter nonsense. Your second one is debatable. Does the presence of a few sherds of Mycenaen-type pottery in the "early times" really represent the presence of "Greeks" (if such a people actually existed in these 'early times). Does actually speaking Greek represent a common origin, a bond, or sense of unity ? Some would argue no, not necessarily, unless there is good evidence. The only clear evidence comes from 5th century BC onwards when the macedonian Kings aimed to forge greater relations with the city-states, which was met with varying degress of skepticism by their southern contemporaries. Hxseek (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't get into that again, please, all of you... This issue has been debated over and over again. What is important is that according to current academic consensus the ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe, as Greek as most acknowledged pastoral Greek tribes. Yet, there is a minority of scholars who are proponents of the theory that before the 5th century (actually the Macedonian history BEGINS in the 9th century, so arguments about Mycenaean remnants are irrelevant to that matter, relevant only to the presence of OTHER Greek tribes in the region) the Macedonians had a distinct civilization which cannot be described, since there is no evidence thereof (such as this hypothetical non-Greek Macedonian language). Their arguments are based on the scarcity (not the non-existence) of archaeological evidence (what is also true about most ancient states and certainly about almost all Greeks)and is respected but by far less supported. You all know that, I know that, BBB know that, yet their theory is presented as should. Hxseek, we have discussed this matter a lot, I could start a conversation on every word of your paragraph (ethnogenesis..., Mycenean.., early times.., bond.., 5th century..., kings..., city states..., language..., skepticism... etc). I know your understanding of ethnogenesis and migration is novel, but you also know that the Greekness of the Macedonians is the prevalent "theory". This is what we need, anything else is just words which will lead to no outcome, since BOTH theories admittedly exist. GK1973 (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not disagree with what you're sying, but the article could be improved in the way the matter is discussed. My understanding is not novel, it is based on 40 eyars of discussion by ethnologists. Rather, books dealing with such topics (and by no means restricted to this area) are still dealing with the matter within an antiquated model. the basic presmise is still, according to those who take herodotus' account verbatim, the macedonians were a doric tribe who remained in the norwthwest after the rest moved further south. Such model has been increasingly disputed, so much so that ethnologists actually reject it. it is based on similar assumptions, from both linguists and archaeologists foollwing the idea that a people originate from a well-defined 'homeland', speak the same tongue and carry elements of material culture with them. Therefore, when a language spreads, or new type of pottery appears, then this must mean that there has been a population expansion/ migration. Thus, anyone who speaks a related language is deemed to be a blood relative, having been once of the same stock - like a phylogenic tree in classifying animals. This is simply not supported by the reality of human demographics and mobility. Spreading of langauge, cultural norms, etc actually occur due to contact, parallel evolution, linguistic convergence, imitatation, competition between neighbouring elites. Yes, of course, there is some movement, war, raids, etc, but this has been overplayed far too often.

With any 'ethnic' related article, especially Balkan ones (given that we are all a bit hot-blooded), anything which is a caveat, clarification or extension of the way in which certain sides want it to be rpesented is attacked. Certainly, every proud Greek can site the account of herodotus by heart, but few if any on this page actually understand, or are willing to perceive, that such accounts are often semi-legendary. A heroic tale of a royal-led migration is a literary topos. It's cliche. Eg see story of the indo-Aryan Vedas, the arrival of Croats and Serbs, Goths to Black Sea, etc, etc. I am not dismissing such accounts, for they do tell us a lot, and they might well hold grains of truth, but they just could be the invention of the rulers legitimising their rule over others by creating a story of a divine-sanctioned right to rule

If I can draw comparison to Celts, it might be better understood, given that it is less emotive for some of the concerned editors/ readers. According to a simplistic account, the Celts originated from their homeland in anceint Austria, the centre of Halstatt, and expanded everywhere to Gaul, Iberia, Balkans and Britain. And yes, the Greeks certainly recorded invasions of Celts from the north. However, that the Celts expanded from a tiny area to half of Europe is a nonsense. it was a linguistic shift caused by, and accompanying, a change in ideology. Societal elites adopted this new Bronze Ages style, a greater societal herirchization, which resulted in militirization. This is what prompted the invasion of small "Celtic" warbands into greece. They were probably Danubian locales who adopted the universal Celtic style, because that was the in-fashion, at least in central Europe, and had nothing to do with 'Celts' in Gaul, central Halstatt, or Britain apart from a veneer of similar stylistic elements shared by upper/ martial classes in their respective groups.

Same with Macedonians. They were not progeny of a ancient people called Dorians who remained in Epirus, whilst the rest migrated, yet they retained their 'memory' of Hellenism. Rather, the greek city-states evolved in situ, there and then in Greece. Contatcs as well as rivalries fueled their similar organizations and language convergence. Macedonia, in the early half of the 1st millenium BC has nothing to do with the emerging Greek city states in the south. Archaeological evidence clearly shows, rather, similarities with Glasinac culture, as well as variously with Thracian elements. As greek culture developed into 'in-fashion' status in southern Europe/ central mediterranean, then the Greek expanded as a lingua franca. Macedonia wanted the wealth of Greece, and increasingly converged in terms of culture and language. This is evident by the fact that macedonian language is only partly related to Greek, 1/3 of it is totally differenet (see Mallory, etc). There was no dormant greek tribe in the Pindus that came alive in Macedonia, led by the Argeads, nor any other such mass movement of Greeks into Macedonia. There were no "proto-Greeks" who transveresed the Balkans and arrived in Greece. But rather, a sense of hellenism began to develop in southern Greece from whatever time it might be (? 3rd/ 2nd milleium) as the city-states shared contacts, rivalries, etc. This expansion only reached Macedonia much later, as Thracian and Persian influences there weakened, eventually resulting in a Greek identity amongst the royal family.

There is no evidence of multiculturalism in the Macedonians. Yes. Hellenic culture was so predominant, and secondly, there were no documented Macedonians prior to this period. This event brought them into the political / historical record kept by the Greeks. yet their lifestyl were vastly different to city-states, more akin to Illyrians, etc. We must remember that lanagueg and identity is mutable, not set. Finally, one should also keep i mind that the remnants of any civilization's culture that we see today is moslty representative of what the ruling strata wished to be seen as. The mass majority was often far less homogeneous, and at times, culturally quite different. In such times, the elites actively distinguisghed themselves from subjetcs, and rather shared in the fashion and styles of other elites. Just like Celticism was a style shared by warrior elties from vast and disperate areas of central and western Europre, so to was Hellenism n the southern Balkans. Does not mean any common origin, or necessarily a sense of unity. Later, people from as far as Britain to Syria were "Romans" Does this mean that they all originated from an ancient proto--Italic tribe, and can therfore be simply labelled as "Italic" ? No. Hxseek (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

One difference between your examples and the case of the ancient Macedonians is the available evidence. There is evidence of different religions, different lifestyles, different languages etc around the Mediterranean before Roman expansion for example, there is no such evidence in relation to the ancient Macedonians. On the contrary, every time ancient Macedonians appear in historical records, they are associated with the Greek religion, language etc. Claims that this was the result of cultural influence from southern Greece are not implausible, there is just no evidence supporting them. It is politically motivated speculation.--Ptolion (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand the points of Hxseek, we have discussed them in length in the past, but I still think that they are irrelevant as to the content of this article. No matter how you perceive any process of ethnogenesis and mixture of populations, the fact remains that according to both the ancients and established archaeology, the Macedonians were indeed a Greek tribe sharing common characteristics with all other Greek pastoral states. Where you get mixed up is in your perception of the territorial entity of Macedonia. You speak of Macedonia as was perceived in the 19th century and fail to understand that it is of no importance whatsoever what archaeological evidence we have from parts of Macedonia which did not belong to the pre 5th century Macedonian region. The people who lived around the Argead state and the rest of the Macedonian tribes had a very distinct culture and were never considered Greeks (no matter what certain nationalist Greeks support when they are talking about the Greekness of Thracians). We have loads of archaeoligical and literary evidence of pre 5th century Macedonia and it is not ambiguous evidence but directly pointing at a Greek culture, as was this of the Aetolians, the Acarnanians or the Epirotans. The Macedonians had nothing to do with "Macedonia" before the 9th century. They were invaders (you do not believe even in small scale dislocation of populations, as I remember, but this is what archaeologists, historians, the Macedonians themselves and the rest of the Greeks believed), ousted (or/and assimilated, there is no real difference here, since culturally the assimilation was full) and co habited the lands of 19th century Macedonia but not of pre 5th century Macedonia. The Thracian tribes, the Illyrians or Paeonians, the Bryges and many others id NOT live in Macedonia (the lands of the Macedonians). They lived in the "broader region of Macedonia". We have evidence of many pre 5th century Macedonians (litereary evidence of course as is any evidence of any pre 5th century prominent Greek...), and their lifstyle was the exact same as the one of any other pastoral Greek civilization. Talking about city states when most people do not even have a clue what they were is no good argument. First, not all Greeks lived in city states. Most Greek states were not like Athens, Sparta was not like Athens... Secondly, Macedonia also had cities with theaters and fora, but their main differentiation from the Athenian system was that they still had kings as many other Greek states of the time. That the Macedonian population was mainly pastoral and not urban has nothing to do with their Greekness or evidence thereof. Greekness had nothing to do with living in a city or city state (which did not exist as a word then, it is our invention and actualy means "state" and NOT "city", exactly as "citizen" means member of a state and NOT a city dweller...). Your argument as to what a Macedonian was then, when you compared it to the use of the word "Roman" in the age of Byzantium is also unfortunate. Macedonians of the old were not a people residing in a huge stretch of lands. they were actually a people living in a very limited area and the meaning of their name was certainly not vague. The term "Greek" is much vaguer, since it comprised many populations and culturally different entities, but a Macedonian was as Macedonian as an Athenean was an Athenean. It is true that in the age of Philip and Alexander Macedonians were all Greeks residing in Macedonia as is clear by the acknowledgement of the Macedonianism of Greeks like the Amphipolitans (an Athenean colony conquered by Philip) etc... Anyways... as much as I enjoy conversing with you, I still do not think we should get into such lengths regarding this article. GK1973 (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You're incorrect. Thracian and Illyrian type finds have been found at the very heart of what became ancient Macedonia, in the surrounds of Pella, etc. Secondly, clearly not all ancient historians perceived Macedonians as Greeks. I know this has conveniently been repeatedly swept under the rug in this article, and brushed off as political slander by Philip's contemporaries, but the fact that doubt even existed is noteworthy. Thirdly, I never stated that small scale migration did not happen. Ofcourse it did. At least some people must move to carry around new languages and ideas. What i do not accept is the notion that an entire Macedonian tribe, or nation, just moved from Olympia, Orestes, or wherever, and migrated to Emanthia. That is demographically not possible, even if it is a relatively small-scale movement c/f an alleged migration from Scandinavia to Oium. Farmers can move about with itenerant agriculture, and with their flocks, etc, but this is within well-defined niches. Only groups of warriors (young men) would possibly move a more considerable distance. What is wrong is to argue that a pre-formed Macedonian nation (as it were) existed in Olympia and then moved to Emanthia, where they continued on their Macedonism. There is no evidence for this. Such an idea rests on the theory that there was a proto-Greek/ Dorian invasion of Greece in the Bronze Age. This is outdated linguistic theory. Rather, Greek completed its development in Greece as a result of an incomplete convergence and subsequent fragmentation of so-called 'proto-Indo-European' used by farmers, or steppe culture peoples (whichever theory you subscribe to). As a result, there was no body of proto-Greeks who were scattered throughout the peninsula after their 'arrival' and continued to speek Greek, albeit in sometimes divergent forms, as in the case of the 'archaic' Dorians who remained in the northwest, who would later develop into Macedonians. Rather, there was a scattering of related dialects and sister langauges throughout the landscape. Given the geographic nature of Greece and the Balkans, this could have produced a patchy mosaic of local languages and culture, which by the way, were probably mutable and in a near-constat state of flux. There was no uniform proto-Greek culture. Only increasing contacts between local communities led to the development of Hellenistic culture. This process started well south of Emanthia.

Consequently, Macedonians formed in situ, in Macedonia , due to the prevailing conditions. It is only natural their lifestyles and customs would also show parallels to Illyrians, et al, given their eco-geography. You say there is no evidence for this, quite a few authors would disagree with you. The gradual alligment of Macedonia with Greece was secondary to a political & cultural re-allignment. We have absolute evidence for this. The final stage of this occurred in recorded history with the 'Atticisation' of Macedonian language, the final stage of linguistic convergence, as diplomatic contacts reached their peak. The hellenization of Emanthia represented several centuries worth of convergence of its ihnabitants (at least, to its ruling strata) to a Hellenistic ideologem. Greek culture represented a high level of development. They wanted in on this gentleman's club, hence the invention of a heroic journey from Argos

Nobody's idealistic view of history needs to be threatened, we are just taking analysis to a quaternery level rather than leaving discourse at a high school level

Hxseek (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

...We are again engaging in a conversation that has no significance in this article but I will answer you.

You're incorrect. Thracian and Illyrian type finds have been found at the very heart of what became ancient Macedonia, in the surrounds of Pella, etc.

Of course, they have. BUT, they are dated to older times than those in question, they are not usually Thracian OR Illyrian but unfortunately some archaeologists tend to name thus anything found in the Balkans bearing no Greek inscription. The Brygians, to our understanding were not Thracians nor Illyrians, neither were the Paeonians and many other peoples. Both the Thracians and the Illyrians consisted of many tribes as did the Greeks. They are considered the 3 most important cultural groups in Balcan antiquity, but not the only groups. Yet, artefacts that belong to other non-Greek tribes are conveniently called Thracoillyrian, not because they were manufactured by those people but because they were excavated in the area generally thought to be mainly inhabited by them. Anyways, artifacts in Macedonia proper are diverse, but the Macedonian civilization has a starting chronological point and this is very evident in the archaeological evidence. There was never an artifact excavated that could be attributed to the Macedonian civilization and was not Greek in nature.

Secondly, clearly not all ancient historians perceived Macedonians as Greeks. I know this has conveniently been repeatedly swept under the rug in this article, and brushed off as political slander by Philip's contemporaries, but the fact that doubt even existed is noteworthy.

Actually there is NO ancient HISTORIAN whatsoever who did not clearly maintain that the Macedonians were Greek. There was NO ancient historian who disputed the Greekness of the Macedonians. It was 2 (most people only know of 1) Athenian orators of the anti-phillipic Athenian "party" who ever called Philip a barbarian and one very small fragment of the words of a poet. All these references (as I have already explained in other posts, much less in number than the allegations we have of the barbarism of the Athenians) have been made in times when Macedonia was the "aggressor" and are generally regraded as simple slander. I would have no trouble admitting the existence of such texts, IF there was any non-polemic text calling the Macedonians barbarians as a people as is the case, for example, with the Athenians, who according to Herodot were barbarians, hellenized by the MACEDONIANS, before the latter were renamed to Dorians... Now, this allegation is non-polemic, is made by a historian before the Peloponnesian War and shows that indeed there was a tradition that the Athenians were introduced to the Hellenic language by another people. There is no reference like that in any text, not even a polemical one, in the whole Graecoroman historiography, while there are hundreds of passages which directly point to their Hellenism. As peculiar as it may sound, we have MORE evidence as to the barbarism of the Athenians than that of the Macedonians...

Thirdly, I never stated that small scale migration did not happen. Ofcourse it did. At least some people must move to carry around new languages and ideas. What i do not accept is the notion that an entire Macedonian tribe, or nation, just moved from Olympia, Orestes, or wherever, and migrated to Emanthia. That is demographically not possible, even if it is a relatively small-scale movement c/f an alleged migration from Scandinavia to Oium.

Noone ever claimed that the ENTIRE Macedonian tribe migrated to Emathia. According to Herodot, only part of the Makednoi tribe migrated to the area they called Macedonia. And afterwards, he is also very clear when he says that it was again part of then who migrated south to the Peloponnese. The other traditions also only speak of partial migration, in the same manner as were made the Greek colonies, a very good parallel... And of course we do not just talk of migrations but of invasions, conquest and then transport of populations, which is not the same thing. And for peoples to be ousted from a region, especially, when we are talking of such small regions (Macedonia proper is a very small land indeed), is a very common event historically. We have so many paradigms, that it would be pointless to argue. All Greek, Roman and Carthaginian colonies were established in the same manner. Were the Greeks ousted from Ionia? Did the Scots migrate from Ireland? Did the Norwegian Vikings settle in the Orkneys? Were the Greeks of Cyprus ousted from North Cyprus? The Indians by the White Man in the Americas?... We have so many examples of mass disposition of populations and in much larger areas than small Argead Macedonia.

Farmers can move about with itenerant agriculture, and with their flocks, etc, but this is within well-defined niches. Only groups of warriors (young men) would possibly move a more considerable distance. What is wrong is to argue that a pre-formed Macedonian nation (as it were) existed in Olympia and then moved to Emanthia, where they continued on their Macedonism. There is no evidence for this. Such an idea rests on the theory that there was a proto-Greek/ Dorian invasion of Greece in the Bronze Age.

You need about two days to walk the distance Herodot claims was covered by the Macedonians who moved to this land... We are talking about really small distances. There are theories (obviously the ones you stand for) about mass migrations through huge stretches of land, such as the mass barbarian migrations of the Medieval years, but these theories have nothing to do with this example here. A herdsman would anyways walk this distance with his flock, if there would be safe pasture for his herd to graze. We are not talking here of the Slav or the German migrations, but of some 10.000 people conquering and utilizing the plains they saw downhills... There is no "considerable distance". As to the evidence, here you are also mistaken. We do have evidence of a culture change, so there is no reason whatsoever to doubt what the ancients proclaimed (Macedonians included), that the ancient Macedonians were invaders who conquered the place... Disputing the ancients because we can is not the way the science of history or archaeology works and you cannot expect hard proof of everything written. We do not know where the battle of Cannae took place, does it mean that the whole Hannibalic War was a lie? We have no clue as to the exact location of any Alexandrian battle. Does it mean that Alexander never fought the Persians? We have no proof that any Greek colony was established by immigrants from Greece. Does it mean that the whole colonization theme is wrong? History is not based on archeology but on literary evidence. Archaeology verifies or sometimes disputes that evidence. As regards Macedonia, all evidence supports the ancients. We DO have a change of culture. We DO have a distinct Greek civilization. We DO have ancient inscriptions (archaeology) not in books copied by medieval monks but carved on stone and marble which verify the ancients' words. You see... all evidence supports what the academic consensus claims, although there is no proof needed to prove the words of the ancients. Proof is needed to disprove them. There is no "theory", that there was a Dorian Invasion, this is what is given as a fact and is wholly supported by the ancients. You need proof to disprove that there ever was such an invasion. "Theories" are what scholars devise to explain things they discern or discover or even think they discover like the existence of the "Indoeuropean People". I do not dispute this theory but this is something we have devised to explain some peculiarities we have discerned. There is no "theory" that the Romans engaged in the Punic Wars...

This is outdated linguistic theory. Rather, Greek completed its development in Greece as a result of an incomplete convergence and subsequent fragmentation of so-called 'proto-Indo-European' used by farmers, or steppe culture peoples (whichever theory you subscribe to). As a result, there was no body of proto-Greeks who were scattered throughout the peninsula after their 'arrival' and continued to speek Greek, albeit in sometimes divergent forms, as in the case of the 'archaic' Dorians who remained in the northwest, who would later develop into Macedonians.

What linguistic theory? The advent of the Dorians has nothing to do with linguistics. I think that you confuse the term "Dorians". First of all there were no Dorians at the time the Macedonians invaded "Macedonia". "Dorians" was a name given to them after they entered Peloponnese. At the time of the Macedonian Invasion there were no proto=Greeks. There were just Greeks... You seem to confuse the dates. In the 9th century BC we have already formed Greek states. We do not speak of proto-Greeks. If you are citing Borza and his reference to a "proto-Greek pool" this is another thing completely and about the ultimate origin of the Macedonians, not what the Macedonians were before they invaded north. I think that you are thinking more in terms of the 2-3rd millennium BC than of the time frame we are really talking about here.

Rather, there was a scattering of related dialects and sister languages throughout the landscape. Given the geographic nature of Greece and the Balkans, this could have produced a patchy mosaic of local languages and culture, which by the way, were probably mutable and in a near-constat state of flux. There was no uniform proto-Greek culture. Only increasing contacts between local communities led to the development of Hellenistic culture. This process started well south of Emanthia.

Now, this is a theory...isn't it? You are talking about languages, then construct cultures and nations... I agree with your model, this is actually the established historical theory BUT you are talking about the 2nd and 3rd millennia, not about the time of the Macedonians. It is as trying to make a theory about the Scots in Scotland drawing your conclusions from how we perceive Scotland's populations to have been around 2000 BC! You cannot do that! Not more than you can find the roots of the American people of Texas in 1st millennium BC Texas. Again, the Macedonians who formed Macedonia had nothing to do with proto-Greeks. They were Greeks. We can trace their ultimate origin to the proto-Greek populations of the 3rd millennium as we can any other formed Greek state of the era.

:Consequently, Macedonians formed in situ, in Macedonia , due to the prevailing conditions. It is only natural their lifestyles and customs would also show parallels to Illyrians, et al, given their eco-geography. You say there is no evidence for this, quite a few authors would disagree with you.

I do not find your arguments convincing enough to abandon established knowledge n favor of an in situ formation. Maybe you are not familiar enough with the geograhy of the region? We are talking about regions at a 2 day walking distance... And of course, you cannot offer this theory as proof. You need much more to disprove established history. As for their lifestyles, I never wrote that there were no similarities to Illyrians or Thracians. What I wrote is that there were practically identical to the rest of the pastoral Greek states. Of course there were similarities, as are similarities now to the lifestyles of an African and a Chinese farmer, but their culture was distinctively Greek. And i know of very few authors/historians/archaeologists who would disagree with me on that.

The gradual alignment of Macedonia with Greece was secondary to a political & cultural re-alignment. We have absolute evidence for this. The final stage of this occurred in recorded history with the 'Atticisation' of Macedonian language, the final stage of linguistic convergence, as diplomatic contacts reached their peak. The hellenization of Emanthia represented several centuries worth of convergence of its inhabitants (at least, to its ruling strata) to a Hellenistic ideologem. Greek culture represented a high level of development. They wanted in on this gentleman's club, hence the invention of a heroic journey from Argos

What evidence do we have for this? Isn't it the same evidence which ensures us of the Greekness of the Macedonians? What political and cultural realignment? For there to be a realignment, there has to have been a different initial alignment. The sources you tried to disprove in the rest of your post are the same sources that speak of the political and cultural alignment of the Macedonians. So... let us discuss political realignment. What was the former political alignment of the Macedonians that later changed? Herodot talks about how Alexander I fought for Greece in at least 2 instances separate from the Olympic Games story. Herodot talks about Macedonia in the 7th and 6th century BC, 2 centuries after its establishment as a state and 2 centuries before the conquests of Alexander. He never talks of any realignment, what he does is excelling Alexander for his patriotism. Does he offer us any insight to the political alignment of his predecessors? He does not. He just describes how Macedonia had been a vassal of Persia (as many Greeks were, like his hometown). I don't think that by political realignment you could mean the fact that they were vassals of the Persian Kings before they gained total independence, do you? "Cultural realignment"? What do you mean by that? There is absolutely no evidence that there was any cultural realignment as concerns religion or language. If you mean the gradual urbanization and reorganization of the Argead (at first)Macedonian state, then it is not something peculiar. It is Arrian who puts these words in Alexander's mouth as to how it was Philip who made his people "more civilized" (my words, not Arrian's) but that's about it. This has nothing to do with either ethnogenesis or affiliations. The same happened in Athens with Theseus, the Epirotans, the Acarnanians, the Helians and the Aitolians remained fully pastoral tribes.

As to the Atticiztion of the "Macedonian language", this is also something more complex than you think. Firstly, this happened AFTER Alexander, secondly, it was not a phenomenon in Macedonia but throughout Greece and was largely initiated by the Macedonians, who made the Koine the lingua franca of their Empire. It is also evident that you are not versed in ancient Greek or else you would know that Attic Greek (actually not the same as the Koine, but it formed its basis) was a dialect as close to all other Greek dialects as British English to American English. This Atticiaztion was NOT made to facilitate dilomatic relations, else it would have been completed long before Alexander III, but for fiscal reasons. It was the need to teach the barbarians Greek. In order for that to be achieved, the Macedonians even devised a new alphabet (the Greek language was only written in capitals) which enabled the barbarians with help on how to pronounce the different words. And again I have to remind you that the Koine was NOT Attic Greek. Pure Attic Greek was considered something like a formal language of the ages and was not even used by the Athenians themselves, as is the case with any "Old" language of any state. What we mean by "Atticization" is the gradual omission of certain linguistic peculiarites in sounds(as is the word "Ellanikos" instead of "Ellinikos"), grammar etc. What is more peculiar is that the Athenians of the Hellenistic era admit that they use Macedonian words in their speech and that certain (medieval) writers call the Koine "Macedonian language". There are so many misconceptions about the true meaning of the term "Atticization" that I don't really know where to begin.

So, Emathia (not Emanthia) was inhabited by many peoples. One of those peoples called itself Macedonians. Now these Macedonians believed, the rest of the Greeks believed it too, that they were Greeks who had invaded a small plain, ceized it from its barbarian inhabitants (as did all Greek (or any other) colonization forces) and established a small kingdom called Macedonia. They did not claim that their history was millennia old, they did not call themselves "autochthones" as did the Athenians, they said that their kingdom had a history of 3 centuries, certainly not that long to be hazy, uncertain or really mythological about it. There is absolutely no myth about any Macedonian hero, demi-God etc in the far past, there is absolutely no mention of any Macedonia in pre Macedonian times and by no Macedonian (and there were many...)or non-Macedonian author! All the literary evidence strongly suggests that the Macedonians indeed had a short history, as they themselves proclaimed and as all other Greeks believed and they had absolutely no problem with it. There is no point in trying to connect the Macedonians with the peoples who inhabited Macedonia before them. They did not. Archaeological evidence also supports this.

As to the "gentleman's club"... Now this is another theory... There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve a story given by ALL ancient writers, no matter where they came from. These were certainly around long before Macedonia had any significant power and there is absolutely no evidence that they were ever doubted. Even Demosthenes did not say anything about these "legends". To the ancients, the origin of the Macedonians was no mystery nor a myth. It had nothing to do with Gods and miracles, it was recorded history and not that old too... you need to understand that to the Greeks of the Persian Wars, the histories about the Macedonians talked about an age as far to the past as the War of Independence is to the Americans. It was about something that had happened not so long ago. If the Macedonians wanted to devise a fairy tale to become Greeks they would make it as all other Greeks did, some God quarreling with some Goddess thousands of years ago... Not a mere 300! And again.. this is a theory, the effort to disparage the beliefs of the ancients based on the a priori assumption that the Macedonians were some kind of semi barbarians desperate to share in the Greek culture. There are so many Greek myths taking place in Thrace, why were the Thracians definitely considered barbarians? We are told of Thracian Dionysus. And yet, the Greeks did clearly consider them barbarians, we have inscriptions in Greek letters but in the Thracian language. Were the Thracians less willing to be Greeks? Were they more able than the Macedonians in using the Greek alphabet to write their own language? Nope... this makes no sense at all. The lack of evidence to support these theories is what makes the academic community agree that the legends about the Macedonian past are not cheap tricks, tricks which would have been attacked by the Greek writers at multiple occasions but that even if they are not true, that they were strongly believed by all.

We are way past high school level here Hxseek. Again, I have to say that I particularly emjoy conversing with you. I only hope that we all understand that in this article we present both sides but concentrate on the one that undoubtedly consists the academic consensus. It has nothing to do with migratory theories nor with details on what Atticiation means. History is written and unless some major discovery brings something grand into light, it is improbable that it will change.

GK1973 (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you find the topic stimulating. Nobody is trying to 'revise' history. However, neither the archaeological nor linguistic proof you speak of is decisive, and it is appears that you overstate similarities and overlook discrepencies. No matter the superficial adherence to GReek gods, or the speaking of Attic as an administrative tongue, what matters is how they saw themselves and how they were seen by others. A considerable body of scholars (Borza, Baidan, and even Hammond) argue that they were not seen as "Greek". Notwithstanding that the majority of scholars categorize them as Greek, such a prevailing theory should be, and is indeed, presented. However, the article could benefit from further discussion about the difficulties faced in arriving at an equivocal conclusion. In time, i will propose such suggestions Hxseek (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverence of the Greek gods is not superficial. Neither is atticization. Basically, what you're saying is, even though they spoke Greek and worshipped the Greek gods, they weren't really Greek. This is absurd. What's more, how can you be so sure that they didn't see themselves as Greeks? Can you quote someone on that? As far as I know, Alexander the Great fully saw himself as Greek. And why else would Alexander I fall over himself to participate in the Olympic Games? Btw, even Borza concedes that they were most likely of proto-Greek stock (I can supply you with the exact quote if you'd like). --Athenean (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, after Alexander had to convince the Greeks and invent a story of his Greek origins to be allowed to participate in the Olympics so as to foster his political aspirations in Greece; as it has been argued.

I am not currently concentrating on this article, so there is no point arguing about patches of evidence here and there. When I can devote more attention, then I will be more than happy to proceed with the theories proposed by some of the current historians that have been excluded, or not incoporated fully, in this article. Till then merry christmas Hxseek (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Now these, Hxseek, are theories...There is no source telling us that the Argead origin of the Macedonians was manufactured. This is a theory proposed by the 3 Bs (Badian, Bosworth and Borza) and even they cannot base their opinion on anything else than a hunch and "common sense". Established history, starting with Herodot and after him with ALL ancient and medieval historians never doubted this. Older writers also give enlightening accounts and also never posed any doubts. You do, but based on what? On common logic as you perceive it? If Alexander I had lied to the Hellanodicae and for some reason (you may theorize again that they might have been bribed or something) they accepted this lie, there would have been at least ONE historian who would have mentioned something. Instead, all sources accept the Argead lineage as a fact, even Polybius, an Achaean general and politician, who "suffered" under the Macedonian "yoke" and lived through the "joyous" times of his homeland's liberation. Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus and so many other less illustrious and known writers, all accepted the Argead origin of the Argead Macedonians. So, after more than 2 millennia and against all written evidence, you choose to accept the said theory. Of course it is your right, but this is the difference between history and alternative theories. This is why the ancient Macedonians are generally held to have been Greeks, even though there are theories to the contrary.

There was of course no "superficial" reverence in Macedonia, on the contrary, they were among the most religious peoples, their only attested language was Greek, they, as all Greeks of some stature were able to speak formal Greek (this is what you call Attic) but the peasantry spoke their own dialects, exactly as all other Greek tribes. We have thousands of epigrams attributed to the peasantry and of course they are all in Greek, which is NOT the case for Thrace for example, where the Greek alphabet was also used, albeit to write their own language, exactly as the Romans did. Now, Hammond of course clearly supports that the Macedonians were Greeks and does not argue their ethnic affiliation. That the Macedonians did not speak Greek is also a theory, since there is no literary evidence to this (most extracts that are being displayed to support this point, albeit few, are usually very easy to disprove if only someone studies ancient Greek literature and sees how the ancients expressed themselves in their own language. For example, the most common misunderstanding is the use of the definitive article which is used in ancient Greek in a different way than in English and greatly changes the meaning for those who read the translation "the Athenians invited the Greeks", in English this is a hint that the Athenians were not Greeks, not in ancient Greek...)

Alexander I had no political aspirations regarding Greece. His state was always a satellite Greek state which participated in the Greek wars but never had any ambitions on any other Greek state, since it was too weak at the time. Your accepting that historians today support in their great majority the Greekness of the Macedonians is a clear sign that you are not yet another fanatic. Alternative theories of the Macedonian origin should be put forward in the article as long as they are given appropriate gravity. If you ever wish to discuss the BBB's theories I will be more than happy to assist. GK1973 (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Tribe"

Is "tribe" an appropriate word to describe the ancient Macedonians? Perhaps the lead can be reworded to refer to them as "a people".--Ptolion (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)