From: cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Scopjian Flag
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:00:13 GMT
Organization: Keele University, England

From article <1992Nov18.210355.19477@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, by pef@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Panayotis Fouliras; TA PhD):
> In <BxvLH7.AIt@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:
> 
>>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.
>
 
> Again "imply"? Perhaps you want them to imply?

I'm sorry you think there are dead certainties in ancient history. This
shows a very naive attitude towards historiography in general. All I am
saying is that if our ancient sources are read without any modern
political preconceptions as to the origins of the ancient Macedonians,
they most naturally suggest that Macedonian was a distinct language to
Greek not a dialect of Greek. Moreover modern research supports this
reading. Of course when you start with the prejudice that the
Macedonians were Greeks your perception may alter rapidly...

> Polybios was
> saying the same about Aetoleans (half-barbaric, their dialect
> was not easy - if at all - for the rest of Greeks to
> understand).

Any chance of a reference, I'd like to read this.
> 
>>> Reason? Our dialect is a
>>> deriviative of the Ancient Ionian dialect.
> 
>>Hard evidence?
> 
> Plenty! However there is an important point here. I am under no
> need to prove anything.

I'm afraid you do, especially about your views on macedonia which are so
extreme and ignore ancient evidence to the contrary.

> Just to clarify and open(?) some eyes.
> And on top of everything, there is an unexpected source: Turks
> call Greece "Yunanistan" and Greek "Yunan"....

Not sure this proves anything.

> 
>>>>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.
>>>

[my precis of Crossland deleted] 
> You do not even understand what you read. Never heard of the
> man. How can I accept what you say about him, probably out of context?
> And the above suggests more of a (personal) wishful thinking
> than anything concrete.
 

I have given you the relevant refernce to a work easily available, why
not go and read it. One reason might be that it will shake your
complacency. Shame you didn't read his letter in the press yesterday.


>> 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.
>  ?????????
> Yet this is what you are doing.


And you are not? The data from antiquity we have is that Demosthenes
dislikes Philip, was a skilled orator, and said Philip was a barbarian.
I have suggested that he wouldn't use an argument that would make him
look foolish (after all he did want to win), you I assume that he used
what to you is a patently nonsensical argument. Which of those
interpretations seems more affected by modern prejudice?

Bits on Isocrates...

>>>
>>> 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.
> 
> I have been doing it for a long time, by myself thank you...


Frankly all I can say is keep on trying, this mistake is so elementary
it's quite frightening.

> 
>>>
>>> 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
> 
> Read carefully again. The norm was independent states, many
> times (=but not necessarily the majority) democracies.

I think norm implies in the majority of cases to most of us.

> kings? Very few if any (the Spartan ones, but not poweful,
> Epirus, Macedonia, etc)

Your best example would be the Tagos of Thessaly I think.

> 
>>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.
> 
> OK, write the paragraphs (the one where this appears, the
> previous and the following one), the reference and we will have
> another go.

Isocrates, To Philip either 106-108 or 103-104 (there are two standard
ways of dividing the text)

This is a huge amount of Greek and I just haven't time to write it all
out.  What we learn is that the founder of the Argead dynasty wished to
be a king.  Discovers that those who aim at this in their home towns
cause civil strife, and therefore left the land of the Greeks altogether
and aimed to become king of Macedonia.
ho de ton men topon ton Hellenikon holos (strong word) eiase, ten d'en
(de here picking up the contrast with men) Macedonia basileian
kataschein epethumesen.
The reason he did it was because he knew the Greeks could not endure
monarchy. The result being alone of kings he didn't rule over a kindred
people (homophulon genos).

The implication is clear. The Macedonians are not Greeks and this is the
case whether we assume the Greeks here are a collective unity or a
collection of city states.


> 
>>Nothing like disagreeing on principle is there?
> 
> Why? I am not the one having to prove wild claims...

I'm afraid you are.

> 
>>> 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*
> 
> Yawn... More non-ancient "evidence"?

I wonder what you think Badian actually talks about in his paper, if not
ancient evidence?? The book is available in the Institute of Classics
library in Gordon Square I think. Why not read it, or are your
prejudices that insecure?

Alexander the Philhellene

Well we know he started as a mediser but changed in time. He was at
first refused entry to the Olympic games because he wasn't Greek (which
suggests that many contemporary Greeks had a certain view of Macedonians
doesn't it) and was eventually  let in after claiming he was descended
from Argos. The interesting thing about this story is of course he
doesn't claim the Macedonians as a whole were Greek (which suggests that
he knew no one would believe this) but only his own family. Such claims
were common in antiquity, the kings of the Lyncestae claimed Greek
descent in the same way, even some of the kings of Rome are said to have
done this. There is no reason why we need to believe this one instance
of a common ploy. It shows us Alexander admired Greece (hence his name
the Philhellene) but it doesn't show us he was Greek, still less that
his people were - in fact it implies the opposite.


>>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.
> 
> Proof? "Later Macedonian burials..." where? At Sindos only?
> Elsewhere? Again wishful thinking? Or have you been there
> yourself? After all I normally reside ~3km from Sindos and go
> there quite often. And yes, I had the honour of being shown
> some of the graves (Vergina and elsewhere) by archaeologists
> during a PanPontian conference quite ~9 years ago. But I do not
> claim to be an expert in archaeolgy....

Go to any Macedonian tomb, look at it and then look at any contemporary Greek
tomb. Are they the same, no. Think about the tombs in Asia Minor. The
Siren monument of Xanthos for example. This is covered in beautiful
archaic Greek sculpture but is on a tower tomb (i.e. a non-Greek style
tomb). Here we have a group of foreigners adopting some Greek features
and retaining some of their own, just like the Macedonians.
> [..]
>>> 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.
> 
> Yes. I saw your honesty and his. The only words that you used
> about the fact that that man has put the Vergina Sun as
> Skopje's flag, was that this in the present circumstances was
> not "tactful"

I stick by that, I think it was a mistake. However the Greeks have also
politicised the Vergina sun-burst, so what's sauce for the goose is
sauce for the gander. Anyway the Republic of Macdonia has suffered so
much constant provocation from Greece, you can see how this action came
about. The tragedy of the Greek position is that it actually helps to
generate the problems which are not there at the moment.

> prefer it to be his, than mine. Now it is only words and our
> government is at odds with quite a few Greeks that feel it is
> not doing enough. Let us hope there will be no need for
> something enforced on us.

Yet again we have Greeks who go on about a threat from macedonia, though
can provide no proof that such a threat exists, and then start making
veiled threats themselves. I suspect something being forced on the
Greeks simply means the Republic of Macedonia not caving in to Greek bullying.

> 
> Do oblige me then and do the same!

I do, I'm ready to change my mind when evidence rather than slogans are
presented.

> 
> For some twisted reason, you seem to beleive that Greeks
> existed in the past and ever since they remained in some sort
> of freezer.


Sorry about Thucydides but the gladiators call! BTW have you seen the
nice stone in the British Museum with two Greek female gladiators on it
call Amazon and Achillia? More than willing to contribute to a thread on
Thucydides or any other Greek historian.

As for Greeks in the freezer - exactly. Most of the postings here assume
the world hasn't changed for 3,000 years, it has.
Whatever the ancient Macedonians were this is irrelevant to the fact we
know have a people who call themselves,  Macedonians living in Macedonia
who want to call their country the Republic of Macedonia. They have
stated they have no territorial claims on any other country. All seems
reasonable. There's certainly no reason for bad ancient history to stop
recognition of this fact and even less for it to cause human suffering
and a threat of civil war, which is what the Greek position is bringing
about today.

Andy