From: cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Scopjian Flag
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:43:54 GMT
Organization: Keele University, England

From article <1992Nov17.114808.4190@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, by pef@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Panayotis Fouliras; TA PhD):
> In <BxtL08.Fs6@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:
> [..]
>>That Macedonian couldn't be understood by the ancient Greeks - that
>>sounds like a different language to me.
> 
> Or perhaps you want to see it as different. I have written it
> to you before and I am repeating it again now. I am a Pontian
> Greek. If Pontians speak loudly the rest of the Greeks will not
> understand them (very little).

Well this is rather different from not being to understand anything at
all, which is what our ancient sources imply. As one of the contexts
here is a trial where slow and clear enunciation would have been the
order of the day this strongly suggests a different language is  at
stake, not a dialectual difference. Only someone with preconceptions of
what was meant (such as yourself perhaps?) would read these texts and
assume that a dialect rather than a language was what was being talked about.

> Reason? Our dialect is a
> deriviative of the Ancient Ionian dialect.

Hard evidence?

>>How about R.A.Crossland who wrote the relevant chapters for the new
>>edition of the *Cambridge Ancient History* vol.3 pt1, ch.20c.A man whose
>>credentials are unimpeachable.
> 
> What did he say? In what context? How was his research
> conducted? All this is important.

It seems bizarre to impune the scholarship of someone who writes for
CAH, but still Crossland's argument runs as follows. All Greek dialects
under go a set of identifiable mutations overtime. The remaining
fragments of Macedonian we have do not exhibit these changes at all.
Since it would seem odd for one dialect uniquely not to undergo the
mutations that all other dialects show, it seems a reasonable inference
that Macedonian isn't a form of Greek. If I remember rightly he suggests
that in terms of form we seem to be closer to Illyrian or Thracian.

>>
>>> Hard evidence please. The Demosthenes argument has been discussed
>>> numerous times and the answer is well known.
> 
>>For those not in the know Demosthenes remarked that Philip of Macedon
>>was not only not a Greek but not even from a barbarian race that anyone
>>could speak well of but a Macedonian. As a skillful orator he is
>>unlikely to have used an argument which if the Greek posters are right
>>and ancient Macedonians were clearly Greeks would have made him a
>>laughing stock in his opponents eyes.
> 
> Wrong again. You are omitting the rest. He also said that a man
> could not even buy a decent slave from Phillip and other
> things. The man *hated* Philip and the threat to the
> independence of Athens that he represented. However, he was not
> successful in convincing Atheneans, 'till the very end.
> Convenient to forget, perhaps?

 If you read my initial posting I noted that Demosthenes was hostile to
Philip, but suggested that he would not have used an argument which
would have made him a laughing stock, if it could easily be exposed by
his philoMacedonian opponents such as Isocrates (who, significantly,
agree with him on this point).  I haven't forgotten anything, but then I
don't have to struggle to tailor ancient History to suit my modern
political ideology. 


>>> Isocrates was not
>>> "philo-Macedonian", but a pan-hellen (calling for union of
>>> Greeks instead of the civil wars of his time).
> 
>>How then are we to explain his remark in his complimentary speech 'To
>>Philip' that Philip when he wished to be a king avoided going to the
>>territory of the Hellenes because he knew they wouldn't tolerate a king
>>and sought to become king over the Macedonians. As you say Isocrates
>>sought to unite the Greeks under Philip's leadership against Persia.
>>Given this context, the remark above seems very strong evidence that the
>>Macedonians were not regarded as Greeks by the ancient Greeks.
> 
> Althoough I do not remember this speech by heart and I have
> reason to doubt your presentation,

because it undermines your argument?

> many arguments could be
> placed:
> 
> 1) The term "Hellenes" was not describing Greeks all the time.
> Homer calls Greeks "Achaeoi" and sometimes "Danoi". "Hellenes"
> are only those under Achileas.

True but this usage stops after Homer; language does change after 300
years you know. This argument simply won't work. Read some Greek history.

> 
> 2) Isocrates could well mean that collectively Greeks would not
> tolerate a king easily, since full (local) independence and
> many times Democracy was the norm.

This just isn't true.  Not only are there more oligarchies in the Greek
world at this time than democracies for a start.  According to Isocrates
Philip wished to be a king and left the land of the Hellenes to do so
and became king of the Macedonians.  Reading the text without bias the
meaning is clear.  As far as Isocrates is concerned the Macedonians
aren't Greek.  Remember this is a speech written by one of Philip's
supporters and it is surely imporatant that even such a man feels he
can't present Philip as a Greek despite knowing of the Argead dynasties
pretensions. 

> 
> 3) The way presented by you, indicates to me that it certainy
> is out of context and I would like to see it myself first.

Nothing like disagreeing on principle is there?

> 
> 4) Most important look further down.
> 
>  And this
>>was the general view in antiquity I refer you to Badian's fundemental
>>paper 'Greeks and Macedonians' in Barr-Sharrar and Borza (ed.s)
>>*Macedonian and Greece in late classical and Early Hellenistic times*
>>Because Alexander like all the Argead kings claimed to be a Greek. The
>>only 'proof' for this is a story told by his ancestor Alexander the
>>Philhellene (BTW what a funny title for a man who's meant to be Greek to
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^
> Compare it to the beliefs of Isocrates, etc.

I agree this seems to bear out what Isocrates is saying, namely that the
Macedonians aren't Greeks.  'Philhellene' by its very nature implies
nonGreekness. 

> 
>>start with) which is paralleled by many other false ancestor stories and
>>best taken with a pinch of salt.
> 
> Why be selective in other sources then? Any hard evidence?

Where am I being selective.  All I am saying is that there are large
numbers of such ancestor stories, mainly from people even the most rabid
modern Greek would not claim as his ancestors and that it therefore
behoves those who believe in the Argead story to show why we should
belive it. Otherwise we're going to end up with some very funny Greeks
indeed. 

> 
>>I'm afraid that you mistake an English qualifying idiom. The problem
>>here is whether Sindos would have lain within the Macedonian kingdom at
>>this time. However if it did, and Hammond for one thinks so, the
>>strikingly non-Greek artifacts and burial practices might suggest to an
>>unbiassed viewer that Macedonia can't be regarded as simply another part
>>of Greece. If you've a political axe to grind of course the picture
>>changes. 
> 
> What is that person really saying then? That this is so and
> hence Macedonians are not Greeks? *OR* that some
> "strange-artifacts" found *only* at one grave sight (how many
> are there in the whole of Ancient Macedonia?) need some
> explaining, for which not enough clues are available?
>>
The answer of course stares us in the face that the Macedonians weren't
Greek. This is a bad line for you to pursue because the latter
Macedonian burials we have are markedly different from those we find in
the rest of Greece.


>>I dare say not, why not try extending this principle to non-Greeks, the
>>inhabitants of the Republic of Macedonia for instance...
> 
> The inhabitants of Skopje (be it Albanians = Illyrians, Slavs,
> Gypsies, Greeks, etc) should be proud about their own
> forefathers and not of other peoples'.

Once again all we have to say is that the president of the Republic of
Macedonia has re-iterated time after time that his country does not
claim that there is any connection between its present inhabitants and
the ancient Macedonians. I wish the modern Greeks would be as honest.

 
>>> As to "your subject", it is hardly yours to own it. And claims such
>>> as the above tell the difference between historians and "historians",
>>> who allow personal reasons to creep in.

> 
[My personal history, save for the plea for a Macedonian girlfriend deleted.]
> 

> If you really *are* a historian (=scientist) with a number of
> hard evidence, I am certain you would not object to put your
> claims to test at the appropriate international fora. Write a
> paper and send it to well established, unbiased (as much as
> they can be)

which being interpreted means take the Greek government line.


Too busy writing on gladiators at the moment I'm afraid, but don't worry
I have it in mind. Meanwhile as other posters have suggested go forth
and read. All the arguments I've put forward are already in print. Just
try to read with an open mind.


> 
> Expressing well-motivated doubts is OK. This means some
> balance, too. In this case, balance is lacking from one who
> claims to be an outsider. So, I will keep on having my doubts
> about the value of your judgements, too.

I think this means 'I strongly disagree with you because you spoil my
arguments' BTW what do mean claims to be an outsider, do you really
think I'm a Macedonian or horror of horrors a Turk?

>>> You better go back to Thucidides for a lesson. 
> >>Now there was a man who suppressed inconvenient data if ever there
was one and ironically when he can be checked is often found wanting. 
But perhaps that topic's worth a thread of its own.

> Why? That man
>was exciled by Athens, yet in his history he was  well balanced and
>very objective, without letting personal  motives creep in his history. 

Oh dear, what about his account of Cleon - the politician who managed to
have him exiled for incompetence? This is contradicted by ancient
sources in parts (for example and perhaps crucially where we're thinking
about personal motivations, Thucydides' statement that Cleon died a
coward's death) and it would be difficult to find one modern historian
prepared to defend Thucydides' account of this man.  Plenty of modern
historians would strongly criticise his account of Pericles too.  Our
evidence for his lack of bias is that *he* tells us he isn't going to be
biassed - need I say more. 


>He travelled a lot to get a first hand idea of what he was writing
>about, instead of *just*  reading what others wrote. 

I'm not sure even he says this, though he does say he interviewed
eye-witnesses.  He never gives us conflicting view points though he just
presents the account *he* thinks is most plausible - and of course we
can't check this.  He certainly didn't travel to Pylos though, which is
one of the few places where his data can be checked and they are found
very wanting.  This isn't to say that Thucydides isn't a very
interesting and very important ancient source - he is.  Might be worth
thinking about him when you bone up on what 'Hellene' meant in C4 BC

Andy