From: cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Scopjian Flag
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:38:30 GMT
Organization: Keele University, England

From article <1992Nov16.133352.8741@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, by pef@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Panayotis Fouliras; TA PhD):
>>We then have the ancient sources
>>suggesting that the Macedonian language was not Greek, something
>>supported by modern philological investigation.  In terms of archaeology
>               ^^^^^^
> Modern? What did the ancients themselves say?

That Macedonian couldn't be understood by the ancient Greeks - that
sounds like a different language to me.

> Who are these
> modern people? What is their background? I could come out
> tomorrow and claim anything, just because I hold a PhD in
> history from Micky Mouse University, or because I have a
> personal motive (non-scientific).

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.

 
> 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.

> 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. 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*

> After all, why
> did Alexander send the 100(I think) Persian shields to Athens
> as a trophy with the well known enscription of "Greeks apart
> from Lacedaemons (=Spartans)" and did not mention Macedonians
> separately?

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
start with) which is paralleled by many other false ancestor stories and
best taken with a pinch of salt.


> The biggest part of the Greek army was his anyway.

Of course a lot of them had no choice but to be there. let's also never
forget that some of Alexander's toughest opponents in his war against
Darius were Greeks fighting for Persia.

> 
>>the Sindos burials from the late archaic period show strong Balkan
>>(Thracian or Paeonian?) features which again might be suggestive of the
>                                               *****
>>origins of the ancient Macedonians.  I could go on, but think this is
>>enough to show the question is at least an open one.  In fact the only
>>preposterous stance on this issue is the one which unthinkingly asserts
>>that the ancient Macedonians were unproblematically Greek.
> 
> Even you are not certain about the value of your arguments.

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. As for preposterous posturing I stand by what I said above.

 
>>I'm interested that those taking the Greek government's propaganda line
>>on this issue frequently seem to labour under the delusion that those
>>who disagree with them have personal problems. However perhaps this
>>tells us more about this group than their opponents. My only problem is
>>that as an ancient historian I dislike seeing my subject prostituted for
>>modern political aims especially when the outcome of this is human
>>misery and alas an ever increasing liklihood of war.
> 
> The above is exactly my point. I do not need any brainwashing
> from any government to speak with pride about my forefathers, be it
> ancient, medieval or contemporary (e.g. El Alamein, Tunis,
> Italy, D-day, Korea).

I dare say not, why not try extending this principle to non-Greeks, the
inhabitants of the Republic of Macedonia for instance...


> 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.

Once again what are these personal reasons please?I'm a professional
ancient historian from the North of England with to the best of my
knowledge not a drop of Balkan or Greek blood in my veins, nor do I have
a Macedonian girlfriend (all offers considered though).  I have no axe
to grind one way or the other.  I in my turn might be entitled to wonder
about the objectivity of people who when faced with uncomfortable data
from the past simply start to abuse in this odd manner those who dare to
challenge their preconceptions. 

Andy

> 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. 

Andy