Oldest samples of writing in Macedonia

[Hoplitesmores]

Athenians were pretty cocky and called spartans,macedons,epirotes and other Greeks barbarians as it suited them.I would like to know the epithetes other Greeks gave to the Athenians!

Hey today they call the souvlaki ,kalamaki(drinking straw) and we call it souvlaki-what it actually is.

[Comerus Gallus]

Other point...The greeks or either way the pointian greeks of the Black Sea only could understand one word among themselves, when one of both groups sead: Thalassa!....Thalassa!...

The Pontian or Pondid greeks tended to be of darker features, like some Komnenian rulers & people etc. but we are not ethnicly diferent to other greeks, but in dialec & features.

Mecedon were doric greeks no doubt who borrowed words from their neighbours....Athenians,were like the advanced Romans... a racist bitch group mofo phili malakas lol!.

its about class group & who wanted to be the first among others.


I'm native Spanish speaking, I' have become kinda isolated from my spanish speaker comunity, I have to learn english by force & it doesn't take long for you forget alot of your language to adapt to the new one or a mix one... At home with my family we speak Spanglish, we use english words when we forgot how u say it in spanish, or for convenience, if the english u spanish word its easiest to say, we use it first...

Now, imagine the Macedonians that lived more close to the barbarians & perhaps they had to trade or negociate more with them in peace or in war than with their greek brothers.

Now what about the accent fact...even in our modern day we couldn't understand our neighbeours that speak similar dialects.

[Idomeneas]

Greece always suffered from extreme localism. Even today there are traces of that, imagine in ancient world. For beter or worse most of our sources are athenian and express their policy and taboos. Let us not forget that ancient Greeks and especially Athenians tended to construct evidences of historic or mythological origin, which at the time had almost the same value. Who for example can forget that they altered Iliad in order to boost their presence in the epic. Or the Perseas story used as a link with the Persians before the wars.

What i think as ''odd'' is that while there are not finds of a language or culture other than Greek in Macedonia some scholars are trying to present ''grey areas'' and the existance of a ''Macedonian'' culture other than Greek. Apart the Demosthenes speaches , which by the way were in the middle of war Athens vs Macedonia. What are those evidances that support that thesis? And logically there must be alot of them in order to change what was believed for centuries.
I dont know.. doesnt it sound odd each time new findings comming to light just to strengthen the greek character of Macedonians while there is nothing showing of another language, religion or culture?

Until im pointed to an archaeological find that justifies the existance of a ''Macedonian matter'' can i have the right to believe that the whole fuzz is just modern political wishfull thinkings?

[Jona Lendering]

What i think as ''odd'' is that while there are not finds of a language or culture other than Greek in Macedonia some scholars are trying to present ''grey areas'' and the existance of a ''Macedonian'' culture other than Greek.

I think that there are two discussions which have become hopelessly intertwined. (a) The rise of ancient Macedonia, which has certain unGreek characteristics and was not always recognized as Greek - a subject that scholars may investigate; (b) the strange theory that the unGreek element of ancient Macedonia was in fact Slav, as proposed from the late nineteenth century, and revived by marshal Tito in an attempt to obtain Thessaloniki. Whatever the origin of the inhabitants of the FYROM, the ethnogenesis of them is medieval - a combination of Byzantine system collapse and settlers with a different, Slav language.

What worries me, is that if you start discussing (a), Greek nationalists immediately accuse you of (b). Since I wrote a book about Alexander the Great, I get hate mail from Greece nearly every week. Remarkable, because the book was written in Dutch and they cannot possibly know what I said.

What really frustrates me, is the stereotypical type of argument: it's always the same list of ancient quotes. If you write "the Greeks accepted the Argead dynasty as Greek, but considered the population as unGreek" and point at the fact that only royals are known to have attended the Olympic Games (and in fact only Alexander I and, a century and a half later, Philip), the answer is that Herodotus writes that Alexander was accepted as Greek - which is an ignoratio elenchi, and a type of illicit logic for which Aristotle already warned, that famous philosopher from Greece/Macedonia.

[Idomeneas]

Jona unfortunatelly i havent read your book so i cant have an opinion on it. I dont know if people that cannot read the book send you hatemail, that is certainly not logical.

You have to admit that there is an infostorm via bibliography and mainly internet on the subject that Kingdom of Macedon wasnt Greek. Something that was considered defacto before. So logically in my book when a scholar wants to dispute such a big subject he has to accompany his theory with archaeological finds and ancient sources. I dont consider myself nationalist. I consider myself a logical man and if someone provide me evidence im ready to change my views. Guess what. That hasnt happened yet. All i get is notions and theories.
So please, here i am waiting. Were are the finds? Where is that language, even in the form we find it in Thrace, using Greek letters but with different meanning.
The interesting is that Kingdom of Macedon annexed the south and not otherwise. That means that even if they were greatly influenced by Greeks they would use somewhere another language. They were the conquerors, they didnt need to ''stay low''.
Till now the only thing we see is spreading of greek letters and civilization. Isnt this enough to make me sceptical about the motives of people who want so desperatelly present a different side of history?

Am I unfair in some way? If i am, im ready to reconsider. I just need sources and finds.

[Jona Lendering]

when a scholar wants to dispute such a big subject he has to accompany his theory with archaeological finds and ancient sources.

I think that there are two points to be made. In the first place, sources need to be interpreted. If you read, for instance, that Alexandros I Philhellenos was allowed to compete in the Olympic Games, that is fairly clear, but did that mean that all Macedonians were allowed to compete, and were they all considered Greeks? Or does it mean that the Olympic judges thought that only the royal house of Macedonia was Greek, and that the kings ruled over barbarians? Both are possible.

I think that those who are interpretating the sources as an indication that the (or at least several) Greeks believed that the Macedonians were not Greek, do not necessarily misinterpret the sources. Nor do those who maintain that all Macedonians were Greeks dwell away from the realm of plausible interpretations. Both are possible, and this may be explained from the fact that ethnicity is extremely fluid. IMHO, our confusion mirrors ancient ambiguity.

The best way to create at least some intersubjectivity, is to be very explicit about the interpretative framework. In this, I side with people like Theodor Mommsen and his pupil Max Weber, who stressed the need to look at the social sciences. Sources and finds are insufficient; we also need a good model about what ethnicity really is.

My second point is that the study of ethnicity has, during the last decades, taught us that this concept is extremely flexible. I think that Greece and Macedon, as related ethnic units, were created during the Persian Wars, when the northerners willy-nilly fought for, and the southerners willy-nilly fought against the Persians. (You can find a historical parallel in the ethnogenesis of the Dutch and Belgians. They spoke the same language, had even belonged to one state, but in the end, they developed into two nations, and I would deeply insult my Flemish friends if I said that they were in fact Dutch.)

The ambiguity is stressed by contemporary evidence. For example, the Persians distinguished three groups of Yauna: those in Asia, those in Macedonia, and those across the sea. All Yauna, and therefore related, but still three groups. Alexandros' title "Philhellenos" also illustrates the ambiguity: had he been accepted by everyone as a Greek, he would not have had to stress that he liked Greeks. Pericles would not need such a title, foreigners did.

All this leads me to the conclusion that, no matter what the realities were for the man in the street, at state level, both Macedonian and Greek politicians needed at times to stress the "otherness" of the ones south/north of the Olympus. When the Macedonians had conquered Asia, they stressed their Macedonianness: for instance, they used typically Macedonian expressions like "peliganes" to describe the institutions of the new state.

What I am argueing is that, in spite of their undoubtedly being related, "being Macedonian" and "being Greek" were cards that politicians could play. Ethnicity was, as always, ambiguous. My idea is that modern historians, using modern interpretative models, ought to stress the fluid nature of ethnicity, instead of allowing themselves to be used by modern politicians, who abuse the past to make claims - the FYROM comes to mind, and I will not digress upon the abuse of the past in Israel/Palestine. (Why is there no emoticon for "makes me cry"?)

[Paralus]

A most thoughtful post Jona. Could not have put it better myself.

The modern overlay, unfortunately, infests all discussion of the ancient context. It is, to me, fairly clear that the Makedones and the "city-state" Greeks thought of themselves as separate entities. Related, but distinct.

You point about the ancient politicians is cogent: one would do well to balance the view of a Demosthenes. Theopompus, too, as a morally upright city state Greek found the polygammy and "rustic" nature (shall we say) of Philip's court a little too much for him. He comes across as the Greek 'moral majority'!

As well, your point re the participation in the olympics is worth consideration. To my knowledge this was limited to the king and his family. Indeed, the only competitors we hear of are kings.

The Hellenodikai, it would appear, considered the Macedonian king's subjects outside the purview of the Olympic games. One would need to scour the availble evidence for some time to find an average Makedone from Orestis competing. That says much.

[Hoplitesmores]

Phillene was used for Greeks as well.See Kimon the Athenian and other folk.

What i got from the Macedonians in antiquity is that because they, like many Greeks had tribal structure and not the city development some other Greeks had they were seen as backwards but they were still Greek.

If they were something else they would be listed as illyrians or thracians by the writers or themselves.Even Orpheus a mythical character that was Thracian has his origins noted.If it applied to the Macedonians we would have read it everywhere.

[Hoplitesmores]

They were as Greeks as any Athenian and Athenian insults and arrogance along with some modern issues has created this image with a question mark.

Whether they were Greek from the "start" or an extremely early Hellenization.Still Ancient Greeks in both cases.Even if they were phrygians(which for me was the only case that could stand but it didn't in the end) turned Greek at 1300 bc to 1000 bc it still changes nothing but they weren't even that as the data pinpoints.They were some tribal level Greeks in the Border to the North.


If Sparta was in the north of Greece where Macedon was we would be wondering the same thing since Athenians called them Barbarians as well ? :o .But they are in the Peloponnese and they were called barbarians by Athenians but we don't wonder about it.

[Hoplitesmores]

The ambiguity is stressed by contemporary evidence. For example, the Persians distinguished three groups of Yauna: those in Asia, those in Macedonia, and those across the sea.

All this leads me to the conclusion that, no matter what the realities were for the man in the street, at state level, both Macedonian and Greek politicians needed at times to stress the "otherness" of the ones south/north of the Olympus. When the Macedonians had conquered Asia, they stressed their Macedonianness: for instance, they used typically Macedonian expressions like "peliganes" to describe the institutions of the new state.

What I am argueing is that, in spite of their undoubtedly being related, "being Macedonian" and "being Greek" were cards that politicians could play.

Persians called some Sun hat wearing Greeks which would include Thessalians and god know what else.

On the otherness and Macedoniansness.When the Spartans did something they it was Spartan and when the Athenians Athenians.No need to stress anything they were just doing their "job".

Other than the Athenians remarks against Macedonians in wartime when did Macedonians separate themselves from other Greeks?Did they say that Athenians were barbarians?That northern Greeks were different?Of course they would use their own expressions as the Spartans would and did.

I don't get the being "Macedonian and being Greek".Where do you base it?
Did the Macedonians separate themselves in such a way?Being Athenian meant a Greek and the same would apply in other cases.Or do you mean because it was they who defeated Persia they would now be above the other Greeks?



I think we are seeing this separation in the way that the Romans split provinces apart with bureaucratic Criteria.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Yannis,

You have to admit that there is an infostorm via bibliography and mainly internet on the subject that Kingdom of Macedon wasnt Greek. Something that was considered defacto before. So logically in my book when a scholar wants to dispute such a big subject he has to accompany his theory with archaeological finds and ancient sources. I dont consider myself nationalist. I consider myself a logical man and if someone provide me evidence im ready to change my views. Guess what. That hasnt happened yet. All i get is notions and theories.

I don't think anyone accused you of nationalism, least of all Jona!

This topic is extremely difficult, behest as it is with an imperfect foundation where finds and sources are concerned, and with the infection of modern politics of the current discussion. We see (in a smaller way) similar developments where the history of Slavic languages/ethnicity in areas of Slovenia/Austria are concerned, or indeed the history of Germanic languages in England. I've so not heard of people sending hate mail in those cases though...

People, please don't get carried away. So far, I think you are doing just fine though. Laudes to all for keeping cool in such a hot topic!

[Idomeneas]

Hi Yannis,

You have to admit that there is an infostorm via bibliography and mainly internet on the subject that Kingdom of Macedon wasnt Greek. Something that was considered defacto before. So logically in my book when a scholar wants to dispute such a big subject he has to accompany his theory with archaeological finds and ancient sources. I dont consider myself nationalist. I consider myself a logical man and if someone provide me evidence im ready to change my views. Guess what. That hasnt happened yet. All i get is notions and theories.

I don't think anyone accused you of nationalism, least of all Jona!

This topic is extremely difficult, behest as it is with an imperfect foundation where finds and sources are concerned, and with the infection of modern politics of the current discussion. We see (in a smaller way) similar developments where the history of Slavic languages/ethnicity in areas of Slovenia/Austria are concerned, or indeed the history of Germanic languages in England. I've so not heard of people sending hate mail in those cases though...

People, please don't get carried away. So far, I think you are doing just fine though. Laudes to all for keeping cool in such a hot topic!

Ηι

First of all i wasnt offended at all. Just made a clarification. There are people who can be characterized by the term. People who wont hear anything else than what they want to hear. Infact they damage any logical debate cause the ''opposing'' side can easy bag all the people that sound like those as ''madmen'' or ''childish''.
Allow me a parenthesis.
You see we live in the age of information more than anytime before. People who control info or better flood the media with info control the opinion of the masses, but in a way so diffrent than before. Before you were told what truth is, now you think that you discover it yourself. The catch is that statistically you will discover the ''truth'' of the one with the more info broadcasted .

There is a Macedonian issue oppened for some decades now. Its ok i have no problem with it. Anyone can say what he wants. And more or less this was the official Greek policy also for many years. They underestimated the power of info. Now around the globe more and more people if asked they ''know'' that ancient hellas and ancient macedonia are two different things. So you take the chain by the end and you say ''how you know it?'' ''i saw it on the net, they even have bibliography of x and y famous proffessores'', so you move on and you say '' my good scholars how you know it? I may be wrong and you may be right, saw me your cards''. And then we get in the realm of rumours speculations and wishfull thinking.
If there are inadequate finds, text sources that are by no means neutral not indications of a different language (not dialect of the same language), where are the clues that can lead us to say ''sorry guys we were mislead about the subject for centuries, and this is how things really were''?
Isnt it odd? The supporters of the idea of a non greek macedonia right now, have exactly the same amount of clues as the supporters of the idea that Greeks made spacetravels and had supertechnology in prehistoric years.

I would accept gladly to reconcider my views on this historic matter if i was provided with some serious evidence. I appreciate Jona's view and he is fully entitled to it offcourse. Nor any problem ever got solved with hatemail. But im not convinced yet sorry. Cause we cant use sources as it suits us. For example one time Herodotus is innacurate and excessive the other time his word is gospel. Sorry it doesnt work that way. Its a big responsibility to bring a new concept about something long ago established. It needs a great deal of evidence imo.

[Hoplitesmores]

Stella Myller-Collet "Greek culture dominant in Macedonia prior to 7th ca"
On February 11th 1993, Stella Myller-Collet (Ph.D-Bryn Mawr), visited the Pennsylvania State University, invited by the Central Pennsylvania Society of the Archaeological Institute of America.


Her topic was: "Tombs and Treasures: New Discoveries in Macedonia". The president of the Society Dr.Eugene Borza introduced the speaker to the audience praising the 20-years-contribution of "the acknowledged authority on Macedonian tombs."

Stella Myller-Collet has also participated in the excavations carried in Corinth, Athens, Nemea, Troy, Grasshopper Arizona, etc. Her University appointments include: the Stanford University, the University of California at Berkeley, the American School of Classical studies in Athens, the University of Cincinnati.


The new archaeological findings from Macedonia, according to this archaeologist prove once again something that Stella Myller-Collet always maintains: "Archaeology is the Laboratory of History".

The most recent evidence that she and her colleagues brought to light show very clearly that certain Athenian sources were either wrong or simply trying to present the Macedonians as a backward people - merely for
political propaganda.

The life in Macedonia does not seem to justify the well-known derogatory Athenian characterizations. Thus, these 4th-century testimonies originating in Athens,the rival of Macedonia, should be discounted a great deal (particularly the descriptions of the culture and people in ancient Macedonia made by the orator Demosthenes).


These resent archaeological findings indicate that there is an unbroken continuation of the Mycenaean tradition in Pieria, Imathia and Bottiaia, with mild influences from the south (Greece Proper and islands) and
the east (Ionia and probably Thrace). The latter could also be faciliated by the Greek colonies of Chalkidiki (after the 8th century B.C.E.) or the available Macedonian ports on the Thermaic golf (and Dr.Borza indicated Thermai). All this is clearly much earlier than the reigns of Alexander I or Archelaos I

These two kings, according to a theory and tradition, attempted "to Hellenize their kingdom". The archaeological evidence though clearly disprove this theory, according to the speaker. The Hellenic culture did not need to be introduced in there, for it was already dominant in the ancient kingdom certainly before the 7th ce B.C.E.

The discussion continued with even more photographs and a report from the excavations in the sites of Sindos and Dion, which brought us down to the Hellenistic and Roman era.

by Andronikos Romanos, 1993

[Comerus Gallus]

Change of culture its like changing your previous religious belive to a new one... or a life style to another...

The modern greeks have changed so much in centuries that I would say today all greek should be called Neo-Byzantines, instead of Athenians etc( its just an example). but sill greeks he?

look at Spain, they not call themselve, Iberians, Celtoiberians etc.


You have nothing to fear.... I know that not all greeks can speak for the Modern Macedonian like you...

Who ever the Mak maight be, the World would never forget how Macedonia changed course of the World... be proud! 8)

[Idomeneas]

There is a saying my grandma used to say.
''when you dont speak up, they burry you alive''

Its about this, not about fear. There are thousands of people around the globe that believe ''breaking new discoveries'' that are not supported by evidences. At the best case fragments of proven biased sources are used and theories. And everything is cool with theories as long as they are not ''sold'' to the masses as proofs.

There is my personal issue. I want some good clues at least. Or else i will listen and read everything on the subject just as i read and listen theories about the electromagnetic fields of temples, the landing zones of flying machines, the etymology of ''Argo'' in order to mean a flying ship, the use of ''thunders to repel Gauls from Delphoi and the raygun of Ehetlaios in battle of Marathon...
There are people that can talk for hours about those basing their theories on sources also... :wink: