It\'s all Greek to me (Makedonians included) ...

[Rumo]

We use archaeology to confirm or sometimes dispute history as it has been passed upon us.

That's one way to use it, and it' called culture-historical paradigm and it was and it is widely criticized (true, not so much in classical studies, but that's another discussion). Archaeology however can show how material culture is manipulated to create and maintain social, cultural and political (and sometimes also ethnic) identities, regardless if we have a historical reference which we can associate to it or not. And archaeology, to be sure, rather conflicts with many Greek myths of origins. For instance, from Catherine Morgan's Early Greek States beyond the Polis (Routledge 2003 - a great book about Early Iron Age Central Greece and Northern Peloponnese, mostly from an archaeological perspective), page 188:

• The notion that ethne were born of the great tribal migrations of the post-Mycenaean era does a deep disservice not only to our understanding of how and why Greeks conceptualized their own group identities in terms of the past, but also to our contemporary archaeological reconstructions of these regions. It is hard to see how it can be acceptable to consider the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age transition in Thessaly in terms of the Thessalian migration and expulsion of the Boiotians to Boiotia (Thucydides 1.12), while the archaeology of the Dorians has been discarded as a flawed modern construct.

Mutatis mutandis, I guess this is valid for Macedonians also.

So, regarding literary evidence, we have plenty. A number of Greek myths regarding the Macedonian ethnogenesis, a number of accounts regarding their wars and expansion. These are not accounts that have to do with events millennia before Herodot's or Thucydides' times but a few centuries, in some instances decades. Macedonia was a relatively young kingdom and this was not disputed by anyone. The Macedonians themselves did not, as might have been expected, claim autochthony (as did many other Greeks) nor existence in the Troyan times. At the time of Thucydides, the Macedonians had a history only a few centuries long and as such free of myths and homeric heroes. Thus, it is quite easier to follow their history and exploits through time.

I have to disagree, few centuries with no written record is simply too much and the real history becomes myth. What about the Iliad?

The conflicting myths of Macedonian origin (Makedon is either son of Aiolos or son of Zeus, and starting with 5th century or so we have their Dorian pedigree) are evidence for at best an ambiguous, at worst a made up tradition of their origins. Even the fact that most Greek tribes and cities drew their origins from an eponymous ancestor suggests a fashionable way to construct and present their regional (possibly also ethnic) identity.

1. First, because the history of the Macedonians as I have already mentioned is not obscured by myth as is the history of many other Greek tribes but is given as history by writers we generally respect.

We respect ancient writers when they write about things within their reach. But the early history of Macedonians is obscured by myth, much as the early history of most other Greek tribes (or should I say "tribes").

2. Because there is no literary evidence to the opposite.

Opposite to what? To Macedonian lineage directly from Zeus himself? From Aiolos? Or to their alleged origin from Argos? And even if we'd have only one story, would we rather believe the origin from a god or a hero, instead of anthropological and linguistic insights about the prehistoric societies?

Because there is no archaeological evidence to the opposite. Greek influence in the region is attested in the years before Thucydides, no archaeological evidence points at the Macedonians having been anything but Macedonians, while their influence (archaeologically) is expanding according to the patterns suggested by the ancients.

What archaeological evidence?

Anticipating one of the possible answers, a "Greek" vase proves its owner spoke Greek, as much as today we become Cantonese speakers when we use woks, or Berber speakers when we use tajines.

According to this logic, why would we think that there even was a tribe called Pierians? We have evidence of the Greek Bottiaians, but nothing regarding the Pierians. And of course this expansion we are talking about happened in the 5th and 4th centuries BC, assimilating barbarian populations during these centuries is not something peculiar. The thing is that it is one thing to say that there were no Macedonians, only a Macedonian nobility over barbarian tribes with different names and another to say that some barbarian tribes were slowly or rapidly assimilated by a Macedonian culture and people. What is so peculiar about a Greek tribe assimilating barbarians?

For all I care the Pieirans are the inhabitants of Pieira, regardless if they felt they were part of the same community or not. I'm not into the "tribes from gods/time immemorial" essentialist views.

I'm not sure what 'Macedonian nobility' is supposed to mean (king's philoi?), but what makes sense for me is that Macedonia was a territory settled by Greek speakers in time and not coming in one epic migration ("whole people"). Probably these Greek speakers had the upper social positions, so all non-Greeks were eventually assimilated.

[Macedon]

That's one way to use it, and it' called culture-historical paradigm and it was and it is widely criticized (true, not so much in classical studies, but that's another discussion). Archaeology however can show how material culture is manipulated to create and maintain social, cultural and political (and sometimes also ethnic) identities, regardless if we have a historical reference which we can associate to it or not. And archaeology, to be sure, rather conflicts with many Greek myths of origins.

Not where literary evidence is plenty. We rely on archeology to draw conclusions regarding issues we have little literary evidence about but Greek history (as well as Roman for example) is not one of them. There is no way to know what has happened during the 2nd Punic War for example if we only rely on the non-literary archaeological evidence. Regarding the Macedonian issue, we have thousands of archaeological relics with inscriptions that help us evaluate the writings of a Thucydides, a Herodot or a Diodorus. You cannot possibly suggest that we should not rely on works written in the ancient times about a people and not base our conclusions on them. Most of the names we have regarding any barbarian ethnos for example we owe solely to literary evidence. Most things we know about these people's religions and customs we know from these too. Archeology helps us understand details, sometimes with excitement we see things about which we have read, but there would be little we could do to interpret a lost civilization's culture from what we find on the field. In these instances theories are abundant.

Of course this does not mean that we should not be critical of sources, but outright disbelief is not the same.

For instance, from Catherine Morgan's Early Greek States beyond the Polis (Routledge 2003 - a great book about Early Iron Age Central Greece and Northern Peloponnese, mostly from an archaeological perspective), page 188:

• The notion that ethne were born of the great tribal migrations of the post-Mycenaean era does a deep disservice not only to our understanding of how and why Greeks conceptualized their own group identities in terms of the past, but also to our contemporary archaeological reconstructions of these regions. It is hard to see how it can be acceptable to consider the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age transition in Thessaly in terms of the Thessalian migration and expulsion of the Boiotians to Boiotia (Thucydides 1.12), while the archeology of the Dorians has been discarded as a flawed modern construct.

Opinions vary. Anyways, this again has nothing to do with my position nor with how we define or how the Greeks defined ethnicity. I have a feeling that you try to disprove any notion about ethnicity as an impossibility of a perfectly pure DNA. No one doubts that peoples of different "ethnoi" shared DNA. I myself have talked about the importance of barbarian DNA among prominent Athenians and about the assimilation processes that make a Pierian or a Bottiaian a Macedonian. But this does not negate the existence of a Macedonian, an Athenian, a Spartan people, whose ethnicity is determined by other factors by themselves, by their contemporaries or by us. Pericles was an Athenian no matter if he had barbarian blood in him and thus also a Hellen. The same applies to all those Macedonians whose grand grandparents were Thracians, Cretans, Athenians or anything else. Yet, assimilating surviving foreign population is not the same as refusing any type of migration or expelling of populations, especially when we are talking about very small areas, such as Pieria for example. The Indians in the Americas were expelled, countless other paradigms exist. This of course does not mean that there are no Caucasians with Indian blood, but the process with which the white man prevailed was not a bloodless one, nor did they usually tolerate the natives, letting them live in harmony among them.

Anyways... on page 10, C.M. also writes : Working from this basis, I shall therefore treat ethnicity as, to quote Orlando Patterson, "that condition wherein certain members of a society, in a given social context, choose to emphasize as their most meaningful basis of primary, extrafamiliar identity certain assumed cultural, national or somatic traits." She surely does not doubt the importance of "ethnicities" nor their existence.

I have to disagree, few centuries with no written record is simply too much and the real history becomes myth. What about the Iliad?

The conflicting myths of Macedonian origin (Makedon is either son of Aiolos or son of Zeus, and starting with 5th century or so we have their Dorian pedigree) are evidence for at best an ambiguous, at worst a made up tradition of their origins. Even the fact that most Greek tribes and cities drew their origins from an eponymous ancestor suggests a fashionable way to construct and present their regional (possibly also ethnic) identity.

So, with these words you are actually trying to disprove anything we know about history. And who says that whatever material we have is objectively written or not just lies? Of course this is your right, but you should not expect that such an argument will really disprove what we know about ancient Greece, do you? You are calling everything a myth. Do not forget that what we know is only a fragment of the literary works available to those people you doubt so much. It is one thing to talk about myths (what the ancients considered myths) and another to talk about what they considered history. The genealogy of Macedon is a myth as is the genealogy of any Homeric hero, god or demigod. This is why we did not discuss the origins of the Macedonians according to what was considered myth. On the other hand, the Temenid migration was not considered myth, even if certain details can be mythical. Of course, myths show how certain issues were viewed upon by the people of the time and are valuable to us in order to understand what the Macedonians were (or the Magnetes or anyone) and how they were perceived, so their contribution should not be underestimated. You see, it does not matter if someone someplace made up a myth about the Macedonians being Greeks, what matters is that these myths were accepted and clearly show us what the Greek community of the time of Hesiod for example believed to be the truth. So, even if we cannot say that what we know about myths is history (it is not), we can draw conclusions about things as were at the time they were considered a truth. We do not care about what the Macedonians were in the 14th century BC. Maybe they existed, maybe not, maybe they were known by another name, maybe they were building pyramids, maybe they belonged to five different tribes speaking twelve different languages. We are talking about the Macedonians in Macedonia and especially in the 5th century BC and later. In the 14th century BC, there were no Hellenes too... so what?

We respect ancient writers when they write about things within their reach. But the early history of Macedonians is obscured by myth, much as the early history of most other Greek tribes (or should I say "tribes").

So, now you are doubting the Greekness of all Greek tribes? Again you are entitled to your opinion, but saying that we should not take into account the literary works of the ancients in order for us to draw educated conclusions is strange. This is the evidence we have, so we have to work with what we have unless you have access to knowledge (literary or archaeological) we haven't.

Opposite to what? To Macedonian lineage directly from Zeus himself? From Aiolos? Or to their alleged origin from Argos? And even if we'd have only one story, would we rather believe the origin from a god or a hero, instead of anthropological and linguistic insights about the prehistoric societies?

Who said that we believe in the story of Deucalion or that Heracles killed monsters and Theseus a monster called minotaur? Again you are mixing myth and history (what they considered myth and history). Mythical accounts have many versions, historical accounts may have variations but we can compare them and reach conclusions. It does not really matter if the Temenid story is fully real or has fragments of truth. What matters, and what I meant, is that it was never disputed, not even by Demosthenes. The Macedonians claimed it was true, all other Greeks accepted it as true, non Macedonians recorded or manufactured it sometime in the far past. So? It surely gives us a good understanding of the position of the Macedonians in the Greek world at the time.[/quote]

What archaeological evidence?

Anticipating one of the possible answers, a "Greek" vase proves its owner spoke Greek, as much as today we become Cantonese speakers when we use woks, or Berber speakers when we use tajines.

Beginning with the implications of such a bold approach (so, maybe the Romans spoke Cantonese and the Greeks Zulu or maybe all Greek artifacts were imported from the Easter Island), I have to remind you that we are not talking about a Greek vase here... Are you really proposing that archeology is useless? Are you proposing that there is only a handful of archaeological evidence? I really do not wish to expand on this... this whole position sounds peculiar to say the least.

For all I care the Pieirans are the inhabitants of Pieira, regardless if they felt they were part of the same community or not. I'm not into the "tribes from gods/time immemorial" essentialist views.
I'm not sure what 'Macedonian nobility' is supposed to mean (king's philoi?), but what makes sense for me is that Macedonia was a territory settled by Greek speakers in time and not coming in one epic migration ("whole people"). Probably these Greek speakers had the upper social positions, so all non-Greeks were eventually assimilated.

So? Were the Athenians in Attica from times immemorial? Were the Lacedaemonians not invaders but locals or tourists? What if some thousand Makednoi fought against the "Pierians", butchered them, expelled them, enslaved some, raped more and essentially took over the plains? These were the Macedonians. If they were Greeks they were Greeks and they remained so, but thinking that the human species is not capable of atrocities and violence is again strange... What if those who survived and chose or were forced to remain became Macedonians in one,two or more generations? Does this mean that the Macedonians stopped being Macedonians when they decided to keep among them people who did not descend the mountains with them or that they lost their Greekness in the process? Do you really suggest that everything we know about any tribe in history is a lie and that in reality people freely entered any tribe they chose any time? Do you suggest that all peoples are in reality autochthonous tribes changing names propagating lies about wars and conquests? I guess that Greek colonies could be explained as local tribes importing too many Greek vases? Do you really suggest that the conquering Macedonians were just a handful knights among a disproportionally large peasant population of conquered laymen?

[Paullus Scipio]

Oh, dear! I had hoped that what I had related was fairly uncontroversial ‘background’ to discussion of the Makedones history……
Macedon/George wrote:

The Argeadai were not an Orestian clan. They were the "multitude of Greeks" attested to have accompanied the Temenids north.

…..do you have any evidence for this, beyond myths? Isn’t this just the ‘invented’ genealogy of the Argead Kings?

Also, the plains occupied by the Argead state were not just occupied by Thracians but also by Greek tribes (not colonies or city states, but pastoral tribes) residing in the region before the Macedonians.

Again, evidence? What “Greek tribes”? Did 'Greek ethnicity' even exist at this time (8C BC)? Many would argue that the sense of 'Greekness' and a 'Hellenic' culture only came about after the unifying effect of the Persian Wars.

That the tribes/people who inhabited Pieria and Bottiaia were non-Greeks is not seriously doubted. That they were ethnically ‘Thracian’ is also not doubted. Remember too, we are here dealing with pre-History, and history really only begins with Herodotus after 500 BC.

Anyways, you cannot base your arguments about the ethnicity of the Macedonian commoners solely on some hints by Thucydides you interpret in a certain way. Accepting that the peasantry was not Hellenic demands from you to find some sources regarding its existence before the Argeads, some links with any other barbarian population, attestations to their language, onomatology and direct literary evidence.

The Pieres/"??????" were a Thracian tribe connected with the Thracian Brygi, that occupied the narrow strip of plain land, or low hills, between the mouths of the Peneius and the Haliakmon rivers, at the foot of the great woody heights of Mt Olympus
The Pieres were expelled by the Makedones c, 700 BC, as I related earlier, and many of them driven to the North beyond the Strymon river and Mt Pangaeus, later the source of much mining wealth. As we both agree, the conquest/occupation by the Makedones will have involved killing some, driving out others, with many carrying on as they did before, serving the ‘new’ masters, and assimilation begun with mass rape and enslavement, (as at all times in all places.)

It was a whole people conquering other people and effectively exterminating/ousting or assimilating them as is the norm in all such cases. The Pierians are all attested to have been driven away to the east, as are most other tribes against whom Argead Macedonia expanded.

“All?”….the evidence suggests otherwise ( see above, below, and previous posts). History proves again and again the truth of what we both agree – conquest does not lead to ‘extermination’ generally, but a mixture of killing some, ousting others, with the bulk of the population serving ‘new’ masters and slowly being ‘assimilated’.
The literary evidence seems clear – Herodotus and Strabo were in no doubt –
. Herodotus,6.45 ,Brygi/??????. These Thracian neighbours of Macedon may be placed between the Strymon and Mount Athos. In the list of tribes given in vii. 185 they come between the men of Chalcidice and the Pieres. The two passages agree if in vii. 185 the Pieres are the branch of the tribe who lived east of the Strymon (vii. 112). i.e. the Pieres are a branch of the Thracian Brygi.

Strabo (VII.7) “ As for the Thracians, the Pieres inhabited Pieria and the region about Olympus….”

The Bottiaians too were conquered by the Makedones, with many being driven out just like the Pieres ( see Thucydides II.99 ). Herodotus too (VIII.127) has them occupying Olynthus – and archaeology supports this, with Olynthus reckoned to have been founded some time around 650 BC. Mythologically, they are supposed to be descended from Athenian slaves who escaped from King Minos of Crete ! (Plutarch), but the little evidence available points to them also being Thracians, like the Pieres.
(Incidently, the finding of Bottiaian coins from the 6-5 C BC demonstrates that NOT all were ‘expelled’.)

The evidence would seem to indicate that what I said previously is broadly true - the Makedones were originally conquerors of a broadly Thracian region, and killed some, expelled some, and ruled the subjugated rest, slowly assimilating them down the centuries, and importing, for a variety of reasons 'Hellenic culture'.

Had the Macedonians worshipped Thracian Gods, we would have been handed over Thracian or non-Greek names of Deities and would have been told that these were the name of Dionysus in the Macedonian language or something like that. Instead, we have a fully Greek pantheon and religion and Dionysus is not the head of the Gods but one of Macedonian preference as were so many other Gods to so many other Greek states. Who says that the Thracians worshipped Dionysus before the Greeks?

It is commonly accepted ( see e.g. E.V. Rieu; "The Greek Myths"; and J.E. Harrison) that Dionysus was a God of Thracian origin ( called 'Sabazus'), and that mythical Orpheus, who promoted Dionysiac religion,( According to Apollodorus I.3 he invented the Mysteries of Dionysus) was a Thracian, and that he was active in and around Mt Olympus – more evidence that the pre-Makedonic population was Thracian !!

Nor did I say that the Makedones worshipped ‘Thracian’ Gods, but rather the ‘Greek’ pantheon, (which itself evolved over time, absorbing other people’s Gods and aspects of religion ! ) and I also said that the survival of pre-Makedone religion was an indicator that the pre-Makedone population still existed….. (the worship in villages of the saudai, klodones and minallones – non–Greek names for deities !)….just as one might expect.

1. First, because the history of the Macedonians as I have already mentioned is not obscured by myth as is the history of many other Greek tribes but is given as history by writers we generally respect.

I don't believe this can be correct, since we have already seen that the Argeads genealogy was ‘mythical’, as was also their explanation for the origins of the Makedones.
Remember too, that to the classical Greeks(and other peoples), there was no distinction between ‘Myth’ and ‘History’ – one was an extension of the other, both explained the past.

[Macedon]

Oh, dear! I had hoped that what I had related was fairly uncontroversial ‘background’ to discussion of the Makedones history……
Macedon/George wrote:

The Argeadai were not an Orestian clan. They were the "multitude of Greeks" attested to have accompanied the Temenids north.

…..do you have any evidence for this, beyond myths? Isn’t this just the ‘invented’ genealogy of the Argead Kings?

Fairly uncontroversial? Far from it. You just offered a personal opinion and very bold if I might add. A bit strange to ask me something for evidence as to the Argeads not having been Orestai... You are the one who goes beyond sources here, not me. How come you claim that the Argeads were Orestai? It is very interesting how you dismiss the words of Thucidydes, Herodot, Isocrates etc in favor of a “non mythical”(?) theory with minimal literary support you somehow deem more trustworthy (Appianus Hist., Syriaca. Section 333 line 2)?

Again, evidence? What “Greek tribes”? Did 'Greek ethnicity' even exist at this time (8C BC)? Many would argue that the sense of 'Greekness' and a 'Hellenic' culture only came about after the unifying effect of the Persian Wars. That the tribes/people who inhabited Pieria and Bottiaia were non-Greeks is not seriously doubted. That they were ethnically ‘Thracian’ is also not doubted. Remember too, we are here dealing with pre-History, and history really only begins with Herodotus after 500 BC.

Again, evidence? The Bottiaians were Greeks according to the sources and archeology does not offer any evidence to the contrary. Check it out...
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil., Theseus. Chapter 16 section 2 line 2
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil., Aetia Romana et Graeca. Stephanus page 298 section F line 5
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil., Aetia Romana et Graeca. Stephanus page 299 section A line 8.
Strabo Geogr., Geographica. Book 7a chapter 1 section 11 line 5
Photius Theol., Scr. Eccl. et Lexicogr., Bibliotheca. Codex 186 Bekker page 135a line 19.
Etymologicum Genuinum, Etymologicum genuinum (?????????—???????). Alphabetic letter beta entry 192 line 3
Etymologicum Magnum, Etymologicum magnum. Kallierges page 206 line 9.
Etymologicum Symeonis, Etymologicum Symeonis (????????—???????). Volume 1 page 470 line 27.
Suda, Lexicon. Alphabetic letter nu entry 380 line 2

As for more modern works you can have a look in "The Bottiaians and their poleis, Pernille Flensted-Jensen" in "Studies in the ancient Greek polis, Mogens Herman Hansen,Kurt A. Raaflaub, 1995". Here you will find a very well developed account of all positions regarding their "Greekness" and the archaeological evidence thereof. Even though my argument does not depend on the Bottiaians Greekness I still hold them as Greeks and not barbarians.

And yes, Greek ethnicity is attested to already have been of existence in the 8th century. It is long after the Troyan war and even if one finds the Parian Marble too much, Hesiod uses the appelation...

“?????????, ??????? ?? ???????????? ???????.” , Hesiodus Epic., Opera et dies. Line 528.

The Pieres/"??????" were a Thracian tribe connected with the Thracian Brygi, that occupied the narrow strip of plain land, or low hills, between the mouths of the Peneius and the Haliakmon rivers, at the foot of the great woody heights of Mt Olympus. The Pieres were expelled by the Makedones c, 700 BC, as I related earlier, and many of them driven to the North beyond the Strymon river and Mt Pangaeus, later the source of much mining wealth. As we both agree, the conquest/occupation by the Makedones will have involved killing some, driving out others, with many carrying on as they did before, serving the ‘new’ masters, and assimilation begun with mass rape and enslavement, (as at all times in all places.)

So? How does that support a claim as bold as “the peasantry, let it be remembered, are of Thracian stock, subject to the Makedones” (your words)? Does this mean that the Macedonians suddenly vanished and the Pierians who remained in Pieria took their places?
Some of them stayed in the area as slaves or bondsmen and were slowly or quickly assimilated. They became Macedonians, it wasn't the Macedonian majority that was assimilated by their Pierian slaves. Do you claim that the Athenians were not Greeks because in the passing of the centuries hundreds of thousands of barbarian metoikoi and slaves were added to their city's population? Where in your argument can we see this Thracian layman population, which you see as exclusively comprising the Macedonian peasantry? If you propose that apart from Macedonians, Perdiccas army also included barbarian warriors from conquered territories, I agree. If you want to label these Thracians "the Macedonian peasantry" I disagree.

Unless all this is a gigantic misunderstanding and your suggestion is just that apart from the Macedonian peasantry, in the lands of Perdiccas there also was a Thracian peasantry and why not even a non-Macedonian Greek one.

All?”….the evidence suggests otherwise ( see above, below, and previous posts). History proves again and again the truth of what we both agree – conquest does not lead to ‘extermination’ generally, but a mixture of killing some, ousting others, with the bulk of the population serving ‘new’ masters and slowly being ‘assimilated’. .

I already accepted that many non-Macedonians were assimilated and others in the process of assimilation. Where do we disagree here? In your opinion that these people comprised THE Macedonian peasantry. Non assimilated populations would have been foreign and not Macedonian. They would pay taxes and send contingents but they would still not be Macedonian.

The Bottiaians too were conquered by the Makedones, with many being driven out just like the Pieres ( see Thucydides II.99 ). Herodotus too (VIII.127) has them occupying Olynthus – and archaeology supports this, with Olynthus reckoned to have been founded some time around 650 BC. Mythologically, they are supposed to be descended from Athenian slaves who escaped from King Minos of Crete ! (Plutarch), but the little evidence available points to them also being Thracians, like the Pieres.
(Incidently, the finding of Bottiaian coins from the 6-5 C BC demonstrates that NOT all were ‘expelled’.)
The evidence would seem to indicate that what I said previously is broadly true - the Makedones were originally conquerors of a broadly Thracian region, and killed some, expelled some, and ruled the subjugated rest, slowly assimilating them down the centuries, and importing, for a variety of reasons 'Hellenic culture'.

So? I completely disagree with you on the Bottiaian part. They are considered to have been Greek (it is interesting how you accept the sources you provide about the Pierians and discount those that have to do with the Bottiaians... you should choose here, do you respect the sources or not?), but what does all this have to do with your assertion that the peasantry of the Macedonians was Thracian? Where are the Macedonians in your hypothesis? How do you come to the conclusion that they must have formed the overwhelming majority of the Macedonian populace? (again your words... “the peasantry, let it be remembered, are of Thracian stock, subject to the Makedones”)

Again, I am astounded at these statements! It is commonly accepted ( see e.g. E.V. Rieu; "The Greek Myths" and J.E. Harrison) that Dionysus was a God of Thracian origin ( called 'Sabazus'), and that mythical Orpheus, who promoted Dionysiac religion,( According to Apollodorus I.3 he invented the Mysteries of Dionysus) was a Thracian, and that he was active in and around Mt Olympus – more evidence that the pre-Makedonic population was Thracian !!

Why not bring up the "Phonecian inscription"? What you regard as common belief I do not. The cult of Dionysus in Greece is ancient and cannot be traced to the Thracians with the certainty you propose. What makes you even think that there were Thracians back then? Again, you give no evidence that the Macedonians or the Macedonian peasantry were Thracian.

Nor did I say that the Makedones worshipped ‘Thracian’ Gods, but rather the ‘Greek’ pantheon, (which itself evolved over time, absorbing other people’s Gods and aspects of religion ! ) and I also said that the survival of pre-Makedone religion was an indicator that the pre-Makedone population still existed….. (the worship in villages of the saudai, klodones and minallones – non–Greek names for deities !)….just as one might expect.

The Macedonian religion was purely Greek. Define pre-Macedonian... populations who inhabited the region before the Macedonians came or the Macedonians themselves before they emerged as an ethnos? As for the saudai, the klodones and the minallones, what makes you think that these are not Greek words? They are Greek with the possible exception of “saudai or sauadai”.
for example : "??? ??? ?????????, ?? ????? ???????? ??????? ?? ?????????, ????? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????????." Polyaenus, Strategemata 4.1.1


In conclusion, I do not object to the possibility of Thracian populations being subjects to Perdiccas. I consider it a certainty. Yet, a statement like “the peasantry, let it be remembered, are of Thracian stock, subject to the Makedones” is out of order and totally unsupported. What you are saying here is that the totality (or vast majority) of the peasantry is Thracian and that is really something I cannot agree with, nor do I find your arguments even remotely able to support that.
I also have to ask you to be more consistent with what you deem acceptable sources, useless myth etc. You cannot possibly accept the words of the ancients on what you think suits your arguments and at the same time discredit the same authors when being confronted with arguments you don’t like. Argos Orestikon? Why? And even if you could prove that it is as supported as Argos of the Pelloponese (it is not...), why is it not myth while the other certainly is? The Bottiaians were not Greek? Why? This is supported by the same sources you use to support the presence of the Thracian element in Perdiccas’ lands, a fact I did not doubt while you are minimizing Greek presence. So, I would ask you to be less selective in what you think of as acceptable sources or be as selective regarding your use of them.

[Rumo]

Hi George,

We are talking about the Macedonians in Macedonia and especially in the 5th century BC and later.

Actually we are talking about Macedonians in Macedonia especially before 5th century BC, when Temenids came to Macedonia (in your opinion as a "whole people") and they conquered (or expelled according to some accounts) the local populations. True, this continued until the age of Alexander III, but cases like that of Pieirans is from the early period. This is a period for which the literary evidence is scanty and unreliable (late and mythical) such as Herodotus' genealogy of Alexander I (VIII, 137-139). It is worth noting that for Herodotus the Temenids did not flee as a "whole people" from Argos, but as "three brothers". Three brothers, seven generations - who wants to see, sees it :wink:

Thus

Regarding the Macedonian issue, we have thousands of archaeological relics with inscriptions that help us evaluate the writings of a Thucydides, a Herodot or a Diodorus. You cannot possibly suggest that we should not rely on works written in the ancient times about a people and not base our conclusions on them. Most of the names we have regarding any barbarian ethnos for example we owe solely to literary evidence. Most things we know about these people's religions and customs we know from these too. Archeology helps us understand details, sometimes with excitement we see things about which we have read, but there would be little we could do to interpret a lost civilization's culture from what we find on the field.

for these early Macedonians, no, we do not have inscriptions. Do you know any votive inscription in Argos erected by the Temenids, asking protection from gods in their long journey? Do you know any inscription in Macedonia saying "I Argaios, king of Macedon, conquered this land and enslaved the people"?

For most illiterate and barely literate societies it's archaeology bringing the right perspective, not the (external) literary accounts. We know more of Thracian religion and customs from archaeology and epichoric inscriptions (when available) which most of the times have no connection whatsoever with the cursory and stereotypical accounts of the Greeks. We also know more of early Iron Age Greeks from archaeology than we know from all these literary accounts with sons and brothers founding cities and kingdoms.

I have a feeling that you try to disprove any notion about ethnicity as an impossibility of a perfectly pure DNA.

So, with these words you are actually trying to disprove anything we know about history.

So, now you are doubting the Greekness of all Greek tribes?

Are you really proposing that archeology is useless? Are you proposing that there is only a handful of archaeological evidence?

No, I am not.

Anyways... on page 10, C.M. also writes : Working from this basis, I shall therefore treat ethnicity as, to quote Orlando Patterson, "that condition wherein certain members of a society, in a given social context, choose to emphasize as their most meaningful basis of primary, extrafamiliar identity certain assumed cultural, national or somatic traits." She surely does not doubt the importance of "ethnicities" nor their existence.

She does not doubt the importance, nor the existence of ethnic identities, but the objective criteria which are said to define such identities. If you do have the book, please read on: "In other words, it is a matter of continuing choice, manipulation and politicization, highlighting traits accorded active importance in the structuring and expression of sociopolitical relations within the community and in relation to outsiders. Emphasis is thus placed on the strategy of definition according to context rather than on the precise criteria chosen (indeed, it is commonly noted that ethnically salient criteria are rarely objectively definable) – on process rather than outcome." So what matters is the fact all those Greeks believed they are descendents from Hellen, or that they believed they shared some common culture(language, religion), even if in reality sometimes it was not so (you already mentioned the "barbarian blood", so much for the Hellenic genealogy!). That's why Alexander I's claim he's a Hellene by descent does not have to be truthful, it only has to be believed. And it was, as you acknowledged already.

It is one thing to talk about myths (what the ancients considered myths) and another to talk about what they considered history. The genealogy of Macedon is a myth as is the genealogy of any Homeric hero, god or demigod. This is why we did not discuss the origins of the Macedonians according to what was considered myth. On the other hand, the Temenid migration was not considered myth, even if certain details can be mythical.

Who says what is myth and what is history? And I'm not discussing testimonies of contemporary and regional events, but claims about the remote, unrecorded past, so please, let the straw men aside.

These were the Macedonians. If they were Greeks they were Greeks and they remained so, but thinking that the human species is not capable of atrocities and violence is again strange... What if those who survived and chose or were forced to remain became Macedonians in one,two or more generations? Does this mean that the Macedonians stopped being Macedonians when they decided to keep among them people who did not descend the mountains with them or that they lost their Greekness in the process?

Were there any Greeks (as group) or Macedonians (as group) before the actual settlement? Is there some sort of primordial Macedonian village near in Argos, the cradle of the Macedonian people?

Do you really suggest that everything we know about any tribe in history is a lie and that in reality people freely entered any tribe they chose any time?

What do we know about tribes? Have you read the work of authors such as Fredrik Barth? You'll find that ethnic groups (and tribes, also) are sometimes surprisingly fluid and negotiable.

Do you suggest that all peoples are in reality autochthonous tribes changing names propagating lies about wars and conquests? [...] Do you really suggest that the conquering Macedonians were just a handful knights

... and this is part of a longer rhetoric reply to my suggestion that "Macedonia was a territory settled by Greek speakers in time and not coming in one epic migration "
However, it wouldn't be a big deal if some Greek ethnonyms are not Greek. Check the French.

[Macedon]

Of courseI was not talking about what exactly happened before the 5th-6th century BC. All my arguments have to do with what the Greeks believed to have happened and as such formed/acknowledged the "ethnicities" of various peoples among which the Macedonians, the Athenians, the Spartans, the Thracians or the Bottiaians in the centuries for which we have exact and multiple evidence. This whole issue has to do with the ethnic identity of the Macedonians at the time of Perdiccas and back to Alexander I. About earlier times we only can guess taking into account the literary evidence we have comparing its different variations and comparing them with mainly non-literary archaeological evidence. What I am saying is that in the absence of definitive evidence it is not the "myths" that crumble but all and any suppositions. The myths are among the only evidence we have to reconstruct some aspects of reality, knowing that there are many chances we are wrong. How can we conclude that the story of the Temenids, who were just 3 brothers (one variation of the "myth") or accompanied by a multitude of Greeks (another variation of the same "myth") is untrue? Scant evidence for a certain story does not mean it is a lie. You need evidence to disprove these stories too. So, what I am (and always have been) saying, is that there is no point in trying to prove or disprove myths we have little evidence about except from the fact that they were considered true by the ancients and that there were variations of. It is the mere fact that they were accepted at least as far back as the 5th century BC. Apart from that, much of our debate here has nothing to do with the emergence of the Macedonians but with their exploits and general situation at the time of Thucidydes, which is a historical time we have plenty evidence from. What i am supporting regarding the Bottiaians for example has nothing to do with whether they really came from Crete. It's about the peoples of the 5th century believing they were Greeks. I am sorry if I misunderstood your claims, but having to deal with different discussions in a single thread may be taxing, so I urge you to exactly determine the variables of your arguments, so that I can agree or disagree with you.

Of course I agree that ethnicity can be based on false claims, of course I agree that the Argead and the Makednoi stories are present in the literary works but impossible to prove or disprove, of course I agree that tribal identity can be fluid, I have stated this a hundred times already. But I have to add that disproving these claims is as far-fetched as trying to prove them. I think that we might be in agreement and, as already stated, I might have misunderstood your position that I took to have been a seconding of Paul's words that “the peasantry, let it be remembered, are of Thracian stock, subject to the Makedones”. If this is the case, I humbly apologize for appearing offensive.

[Paralus]

How can we conclude that the story of the Temenids, who were just 3 brothers (one variation of the "myth") or accompanied by a multitude of Greeks (another variation of the same "myth") is untrue? Scant evidence for a certain story does not mean it is a lie. You need evidence to disprove these stories too.

Romulus and Remus founded Rome: how do you disprove the myth? Theseus founded Athens: how do you disprove the myth? Lycurgus is responsible for the entire Spartan state: how do you disprove the myth? A single "Alexander" is responsible for the complete reform of the Macedonian cavalry and infantry: how do you disprove the myth?

By the dawn of the fourth century Argead myth-making had extended the "Temenid myth" back several further generations to an aptly named Caranus. When you're on a good thing exaggerate it. More likely, given the institution of Macedonia's "own Olympics" (Dion) around the same time, it was time to refresh and retry a previously successful strategy? Fact is we have no conclusive evidence for any Macedonian king competing at the Olympics between Alexander I and Philip II. Good enough reason to institute your own version?

We also have no evidence that Macedonian was not easily understandable to Ionian/Aeolian or Doric Greeks apart from one text from Rufus (the one about Philotas needing a translator). All speculation is based on the words of Demosthenes, who called Philip a barbarian but never said that anyone did not understand the Macedonians.

That is not quite correct. We have evidence that "Macedonian speech" was a somewhat different thing to "standard Greek" and could be difficult to understand or speak. And not just in Curtius.

Plutarch writes (Alex. 51.6) that Alexander "sprang to his feet and called out in Macedonian speech a summons to his hypaspists..." (Makedonisti kalon tous hupaspistas). Arrian reports the same call but not in the "Macedonian speech". Arrian, in the Gothemburg palimpsest from memory ("Successors"), does describe Eumenes sending an officer - whose language was Macedonian - to the Macedonian phalanx infantry of Neoptolemus prior to the engagement stating that he would not engage them but would round them up with cavalry and prevent their getting to their baggage. His intention was to take over the Macedonians. This coheres with the surviving reports of the battle and clearly Eumenes wanted the phalanx infantry - the Macedonian "grunts" - to understand and so he sent a Macedonian.

[Macedon]

How can we conclude that the story of the Temenids, who were just 3 brothers (one variation of the "myth") or accompanied by a multitude of Greeks (another variation of the same "myth") is untrue? Scant evidence for a certain story does not mean it is a lie. You need evidence to disprove these stories too.

Romulus and Remus founded Rome: how do you disprove the myth? Theseus founded Athens: how do you disprove the myth? Lycurgus is responsible for the entire Spartan state: how do you disprove the myth? A single "Alexander" is responsible for the complete reform of the Macedonian cavalry and infantry: how do you disprove the myth?

By the dawn of the fourth century Argead myth-making had extended the "Temenid myth" back several further generations to an aptly named Caranus. When you're on a good thing exaggerate it. More likely, given the institution of Macedonia's "own Olympics" (Dion) around the same time, it was time to refresh and retry a previously successful strategy? Fact is we have no conclusive evidence for any Macedonian king competing at the Olympics between Alexander I and Philip II. Good enough reason to institute your own version?

We also have no evidence that Macedonian was not easily understandable to Ionian/Aeolian or Doric Greeks apart from one text from Rufus (the one about Philotas needing a translator). All speculation is based on the words of Demosthenes, who called Philip a barbarian but never said that anyone did not understand the Macedonians.

That is not quite correct. We have evidence that "Macedonian speech" was a somewhat different thing to "standard Greek" and could be difficult to understand or speak. And not just in Curtius.

Plutarch writes (Alex. 51.6) that Alexander "sprang to his feet and called out in Macedonian speech a summons to his hypaspists..." (Makedonisti kalon tous hupaspistas). Arrian reports the same call but not in the "Macedonian speech". Arrian, in the Gothemburg palimpsest from memory ("Successors"), does describe Eumenes sending an officer - whose language was Macedonian - to the Macedonian phalanx infantry of Neoptolemus prior to the engagement stating that he would not engage them but would round them up with cavalry and prevent their getting to their baggage. His intention was to take over the Macedonians. This coheres with the surviving reports of the battle and clearly Eumenes wanted the phalanx infantry - the Macedonian "grunts" - to understand and so he sent a Macedonian.

I hope you do understand that I do not insist that these stories are true... but insisting that they are just convenient political fabrications is also as unsubstantiated as is your very bold criticism of the games at Dion (this "counter Olympics" story is really too much and completely unsupported too, just an argument devised by Badian to make a very bold point)... Why should I so vigorously doubt the "Synoikismos of Theseas"? Why should I so adamantly try to disprove that there was a Remus and Romulus or that Lycurgus did indeed set the rules? What good would that do to me or history? We say that these were the ancients' beliefs and we distance ourselves from criticism. We could try to have long discussions on how we interpret these "myths", try to compare them with other accounts of the same events, embellish them with our logic of how we presume that such things happen, but no matter what we do, we will always return to saying that "according to the ancients....". Doubting everything and having nothing to offer as an alternative apart from our educated guesses based on our experience as logical human beings alone is not really history, is it?... On the other hand writing a book with such theories is always welcome and another addition to the hundreds or thousands of such alternative theories...

There was no such thing as "standard Greek". The example you offer does not mean that Macedonian Greek was not understandable to the average Dorian or Ionian. You know very well that "makedonisti" only means " in the Macedonian manner of speech" and is standard Greek use for any dialect without any criticism as to how understandable it was. As to the Eumenes incident, of course you do understand that what you offer is just your interpretation of the story and nothing of the sort is being said in the account? Come on Michael... if you want to claim that the Macedonian language was not easily understood by an Attic Greek or even that it was a barbaric language, you should explain why it is so darn difficult to find evidence... Why don't we have problems making this contrast to all other languages of the broad region? Do we really have so little evidence on the Macedonians and their language? So few examples of Macedonians talking to other Greeks? The only reason I mention Curtius Rufus is because he explicitly mentions the use of a translator, which of course can be viewed as good evidence for that claim, this is not the case with your example nor with any other normally used in this type of discussion.

Please do not single out sentences... I have already spoken about the existence of various Greek dialects as well as the possibility that the "myths" surrounding the early years of the Macedonian states are anything from complete lies to real historical events contained within the various variances of the story...

Anyways... guys, I feel I have to defend myself all the time when I really do not know what your positions are to criticize them myself... Can you please state your opinions?

[Rumo]

Of courseI was not talking about what exactly happened before the 5th-6th century BC. All my arguments have to do with what the Greeks believed to have happened and as such formed/acknowledged the "ethnicities" of various peoples among which the Macedonians, the Athenians, the Spartans, the Thracians or the Bottiaians in the centuries for which we have exact and multiple evidence. This whole issue has to do with the ethnic identity of the Macedonians at the time of Perdiccas and back to Alexander I. About earlier times we only can guess taking into account the literary evidence we have comparing its different variations and comparing them with mainly non-literary archaeological evidence. What I am saying is that in the absence of definitive evidence it is not the "myths" that crumble but all and any suppositions. The myths are among the only evidence we have to reconstruct some aspects of reality, knowing that there are many chances we are wrong. How can we conclude that the story of the Temenids, who were just 3 brothers (one variation of the "myth") or accompanied by a multitude of Greeks (another variation of the same "myth") is untrue? Scant evidence for a certain story does not mean it is a lie. You need evidence to disprove these stories too. So, what I am (and always have been) saying, is that there is no point in trying to prove or disprove myths we have little evidence about except from the fact that they were considered true by the ancients and that there were variations of. It is the mere fact that they were accepted at least as far back as the 5th century BC. Apart from that, much of our debate here has nothing to do with the emergence of the Macedonians but with their exploits and general situation at the time of Thucidydes, which is a historical time we have plenty evidence from. What i am supporting regarding the Bottiaians for example has nothing to do with whether they really came from Crete. It's about the peoples of the 5th century believing they were Greeks. I am sorry if I misunderstood your claims, but having to deal with different discussions in a single thread may be taxing, so I urge you to exactly determine the variables of your arguments, so that I can agree or disagree with you.

Of course I agree that ethnicity can be based on false claims, of course I agree that the Argead and the Makednoi stories are present in the literary works but impossible to prove or disprove, of course I agree that tribal identity can be fluid, I have stated this a hundred times already. But I have to add that disproving these claims is as far-fetched as trying to prove them. I think that we might be in agreement and, as already stated, I might have misunderstood your position that I took to have been a seconding of Paul's words that “the peasantry, let it be remembered, are of Thracian stock, subject to the Makedones”. If this is the case, I humbly apologize for appearing offensive.

George, Thucydides wrote about the Macedonian expansion in the times of Alexander I and his ancestors, so it's about conquests from the first half of 5th century BC and earlier. When Herodotus wrote his work, in the second half of the same century, Macedonia already included important territories between Axios and Strymon (see for example V, 17.2). So I guess it's fair to say that the "core" Macedonian area, the lower valleys of Axios and Haliakmon were mostly settled/conquered by early 5th century. I thought this is what we discuss, especially since my initial intervention addressed also a "Pierians are all attested to have been driven away to the east", which marks the beginning of this expansion.

The later expansions during late 5th century and 4th century are mostly at expense of Paionian and Thracian tribes in the basins of Strymon, Nestos and beyond (Alexander III reached the Danube, right?), or so the literary evidence (now contemporary!) suggests. Of course, we can point out there was no monolithic Thracian identity, they did not all spoke the same language, had not the same gods and cults, etc, but at the same time being Thracians they were not Greek speakers, and I guess this is one of the things Paul tried to point out.

As for myths, I don't see why would I want to disprove them. What I am saying is that they are not reliable evidence, so one cannot reconstruct early Macedonian past from the myth of Temenids (or any other myth about the origins of Macedonians). It's obvious they had a political purpose at some point, what it's not obvious is if they also served some other function, such as recording a real history. But I guess this must be proven by those who want to create history out of such myths.

[Macedon]

The later expansions during late 5th century and 4th century are mostly at expense of Paionian and Thracian tribes in the basins of Strymon, Nestos and beyond (Alexander III reached the Danube, right?), or so the literary evidence (now contemporary!) suggests. Of course, we can point out there was no monolithic Thracian identity, they did not all spoke the same language, had not the same gods and cults, etc, but at the same time being Thracians they were not Greek speakers, and I guess this is one of the things Paul tried to point out.

I am waiting for Paul's clarification as to what he means by that phrase. Claiming that among the Macedonian peasantry or on the borders of Perdiccas' lands most probably there were at least some Thracian settlements of conquered Thracians not forced to leave / who chose to stay / who were forced to stay e.t.c., is one thing and claiming that the Macedonian peasantry was of Thracian stock another. The latter implies that either there was no Macedonian ethnos, that this ethnos was predominantly Thracian or, if Paul used the word "Macedonian" in a more free way, he might mean that by that time the non-assimilated barbarian populations within Perdicas' dominions which freely worked the land as faithful peasant subjects and contributed to the Macedonian army were by far exceeding in number the Macedonian populations who conquered them years, decades or centuries ago. You could comment on that.

[Paralus]

There was no such thing as "standard Greek" [...] "makedonisti" only means " in the Macedonian manner of speech" and is standard Greek use...

To channel Vinnie Barbarino: "I'm so confused..."

The example you offer does not mean that Macedonian Greek was not understandable to the average Dorian or Ionian. You know very well that "makedonisti" only means " in the Macedonian manner of speech" and is standard Greek use for any dialect without any criticism as to how understandable it was. As to the Eumenes incident, of course you do understand that what you offer is just your interpretation of the story and nothing of the sort is being said in the account?

Curtius clearly implies that it was difficult to understand. The fragment of Arrian deals with the battle between Neoptolemus and Eumenes. The relevant lines deal with the approaches made by Eumenes before battle. The last approach, noted above, is to the Macedonian phalanx infantry. Eumenes ensures it is made by a man of the "Macedonian tongue". It is not simply an interpretation nor is it conjecture to see that one very good reason for that officer being chosen is that he would not fail to be understood. Given what we know from the extant sources, he was clearly understood: there was no infantry clash.

Come on Michael... if you want to claim that the Macedonian language was not easily understood by an Attic Greek or even that it was a barbaric language, you should explain why it is so darn difficult to find evidence...

George, where have I claimed "that it was a barbaric language"? I have claimed, based on the few attestations, that it was difficult for southerners to understand. Whether it be this site or another (I'm engaged in a similar discussion elsewhere), my metaphor remains: put an Orkney Islander and a Londoner in a bar and see how they communicate. Some will manage many will have difficulty.

As for the evidence, ancient writers do not bother to fill us in - on a great many things we'd like to know more of - about matters that they considered well understood by those for whom they wrote. There is no need for reporting today to note that sessions of the UN have real time translation for those involved because they all speak differing languages. When, in the ancient sources, such attestations do appear it is instructive how directly and strongly they are attacked or depricated.

I hope you do understand that I do not insist that these stories are true... but insisting that they are just convenient political fabrications...

Such fabrications were, as I noted, par for the course in ancient times. When it mattered, the ruling family of Lynkestis called the Argead Temenid hand and attempted to trump them with a royal lineage srpung from Corinth.

An Argive royal lineage - promulgated in the shadows of a Greek victory in the Persian Wars, a conflict in which Macedonia was a Persian "ally" having been a Persian vassal for some decades, cannot help but have political overtones. To say otherwise flies in the face of reason.

is also as unsubstantiated as is your very bold criticism of the games at Dion

I don't believe I "criticised" these games. Devil's advocate and all.

Methinks Macedon protesteth too much....

[Macedon]

To channel Vinnie Barbarino: "I'm so confused..."

What do you mean?

Curtius clearly implies that it was difficult to understand. The fragment of Arrian deals with the battle between Neoptolemus and Eumenes. The relevant lines deal with the approaches made by Eumenes before battle. The last approach, noted above, is to the Macedonian phalanx infantry. Eumenes ensures it is made by a man of the "Macedonian tongue". It is not simply an interpretation nor is it conjecture to see that one very good reason for that officer being chosen is that he would not fail to be understood. Given what we know from the extant sources, he was clearly understood: there was no infantry clash.

Curtius does that in the extract I mentioned. I have no problem offering arguments against my opinions. This is what a good discussion is about. But the incident Arrian describes is very different. The fact that Xenias is a man who speaks Macedonian does not imply anything else than Eumenes considering best to send someone who will make his enemy look past his not being Macedonian. Eumenes lived among Macedonians most of his life and certainly spoke Macedonian very well. He could have talked to the enemy himself, but he chose to send one of "the enemy". Why is this a worse interpretation of the event than your opinion that someone who has been serving with Macedonians all his life does not feel comfortable enough to understand them, especially, since you also believe that it was a different dialect rather than language?

George, where have I claimed "that it was a barbaric language"? I have claimed, based on the few attestations, that it was difficult for southerners to understand. Whether it be this site or another (I'm engaged in a similar discussion elsewhere), my metaphor remains: put an Orkney Islander and a Londoner in a bar and see how they communicate. Some will manage many will have difficulty.

As for the evidence, ancient writers do not bother to fill us in - on a great many things we'd like to know more of - about matters that they considered well understood by those for whom they wrote. There is no need for reporting today to note that sessions of the UN have real time translation for those involved because they all speak differing languages. When, in the ancient sources, such attestations do appear it is instructive how directly and strongly they are attacked or depricated.

You did not Michael, this is why I asked. I didn't know how to address your argument. I agree that sometimes it would be difficult to understand as is the case with all dialects. We know that sometimes it was difficult for a Dorian to understand Ionian... We also have to keep in mind that most possibly, there would have been a number of Macedonian subdialects, exactly as is the case with all other Greek dialects. I would suggest that the Lyncestai would probably have some differences from Macedonian proper. So, we do not really disagree here. The level of difficulty is unknown but in no way stressed by the ancients as a real problem.

As for evidence, I have to say that although you are partly right, we have lots of evidence concerning barbarians among Greeks. Tons of it. Those who propose that Macedonian was not a Greek dialect but a foreign language have to somehow account for the lack of this evidence.

Such fabrications were, as I noted, par for the course in ancient times. When it mattered, the ruling family of Lynkestis called the Argead Temenid hand and attempted to trump them with a royal lineage srpung from Corinth.

An Argive royal lineage - promulgated in the shadows of a Greek victory in the Persian Wars, a conflict in which Macedonia was a Persian "ally" having been a Persian vassal for some decades, cannot help but have political overtones. To say otherwise flies in the face of reason.

I do not think that there was any reason for Alexander I to claim Argead descent, nor would anyone accept such allegations if there was not a well-known story by then. Alexander's Macedonia was no powerhouse of the time, nor did he have anything to gain from such rumors apart from laughter and scorn, had his claims been so absurd. He could have claimed an older descent as most other Greeks did, lost someplace in the obscure past, rather than talk about a time 3-4 centuries back, involving well known figures, probably well documented by the Argives of the time. he could have claimed descent from Macedon, brother of Magnes, also documented at the time and his claim would have been as good, or Hercules or Achilles (the Orestai are also called a Mollosian tribe sometimes) You cannot hold the Greeks to be so naive as to uncritically accept such a claim. Have we any objections to that? Had this story circulated in the times of Herodot only, we would certainly have someone criticizing it. Of course, a story that was already accepted could be used politically as the Macedonians certainly did along with all other Greeks invoking their progenitors in various circumstances, so I agree that it was used politically by him and all other Macedonian rulers.

I don't believe I "criticised" these games. Devil's advocate and all.

You wrote :

More likely, given the institution of Macedonia's "own Olympics" (Dion) around the same time, it was time to refresh and retry a previously successful strategy? Fact is we have no conclusive evidence for any Macedonian king competing at the Olympics between Alexander I and Philip II.

Now, these games instituted by Archelaus had nothing to do with the Olympics. Your argument was used by Badian to question the participation of Macedonians in the Olympics as you did. Your calling them "their own Olympics" added to this idea. You know that the Greeks held many such games and actually this only serves as an argument that the Macedonians of Archelaus had a distinctively Greek culture. Do not forget that his games were attended by Greeks also...

As for Macedonian competitors, although we have only a very small fragment of the names of the contestants, Archelaus I, son of Perdiccas II also took part in the Olympics sometime in the late 5th century. (Solinus, Caii Julii Solini De Mirabilibus Mundi 9.16)

Methinks Macedon protesteth too much....

...So, then... now you got me baffled again... So, do you think they were barbarians after all? And why do you think that they "protesteth too much"? When did they protest except from the incident with Alexander I?

[Paralus]

What do you mean?

There was no such thing as "standard Greek" [...] "makedonisti" only means " in the Macedonian manner of speech" and is standard Greek use...

The fact that Xenias is a man who speaks Macedonian does not imply anything else than Eumenes considering best to send someone who will make his enemy look past his not being Macedonian. Eumenes lived among Macedonians most of his life and certainly spoke Macedonian very well. He could have talked to the enemy himself, but he chose to send one of "the enemy".

Despite a tainted source tradition to the contrary, Eumenes' Greek background was no great impediment to him. The Argyraspides, at the instruction of the kings, took service under him. Just prior to this those Macedonians with him had even voted him a boduguard of the best of them to protect their general.

The simplest solution is always the best. Eumenes was the general and so sent a subordinate - of the Macedonian tongue - to carry his entreaties to the Macedonian phalanx of Neoptolemus. To claim that is because he needed to take his non-Macedonian identity out of the equation is stretching. One might as well suggest that Antigonus should, himself, have gone and proposed his offers and bribes to the Macedonians and satraps in Eumenes' army in the campaign that followed. Antigonus did not but rather had a subordinate do so. Eumenes does no different only ensuring that the fellow he sends is of "the Macedonian tongue". For cogent and understandable (pardon the pun) reasons.

Why is this a worse interpretation of the event than your opinion that someone who has been serving with Macedonians all his life does not feel comfortable enough to understand them, especially, since you also believe that it was a different dialect rather than language?

I don't know. If that were my opinion I might have some idea.

I do believe that it was - as in the metaphor of the Orkney Islands and soutn England - near enough to a different dialect; not language note.

Such fabrications were, as I noted, par for the course in ancient times. When it mattered, the ruling family of Lynkestis called the Argead Temenid hand and attempted to trump them with a royal lineage srpung from Corinth.

You cannot hold the Greeks to be so naive as to uncritically accept such a claim...

As I say, it was a norm and not only the Greeks used such. The line between reality and myth - for them - was different. From my modern perspective I see it as a political play.

As to the Dion games, there was no criticism. The inverted commas are used to a purpose. Any "criticism" is of the re-jigging of the Argead lineage. It had, perhaps, lost its currency and so was refreshed and extended further back.

Methinks Macedon protesteth too much....

...So, then... now you got me baffled again... So, do you think they were barbarians after all? And why do you think that they "protesteth too much"? When did they protest except from the incident with Alexander I?

George, George... you are Macedon!

[Macedon]

Well... guilty as charged! :lol:

[Macedon]

Despite a tainted source tradition to the contrary, Eumenes' Greek background was no great impediment to him. The Argyraspides, at the instruction of the kings, took service under him. Just prior to this those Macedonians with him had even voted him a boduguard of the best of them to protect their general.

The simplest solution is always the best. Eumenes was the general and so sent a subordinate - of the Macedonian tongue - to carry his entreaties to the Macedonian phalanx of Neoptolemus. To claim that is because he needed to take his non-Macedonian identity out of the equation is stretching. One might as well suggest that Antigonus should, himself, have gone and proposed his offers and bribes to the Macedonians and satraps in Eumenes' army in the campaign that followed. Antigonus did not but rather had a subordinate do so. Eumenes does no different only ensuring that the fellow he sends is of "the Macedonian tongue". For cogent and understandable (pardon the pun) reasons.

Eumenes always was in fear that his men would not be loyal to him, and they proved him right... . He wanted to show the other side that he was no stranger and that he also commanded Macedonians. Sending a Macedonian to speak to Macedonians was only logical for he reminded them that they would fight against Macedonians, not against the army of a foreigner (in the ancient sense of course...). This again serves as an argument to the motives of Eumenes and does not say anything about the Macedonian speech. That it was a different dialect we know, since it gets to have its very own name! I only support that nothing can be concluded as to the linguistic distance it may have had from Attic or any other Greek dialect from the said text.