Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

KING OF MACEDON OR KING OF MACEDONIA ? ZEUS

The Macedonian ORIGIN name is Monastir(Greek name) ! Bitola is Serbian (Slav) Name !!! ZEUS .15.03.2003 P.S BITOLA is forein word for philip II king of Macedonia !!

categorization of this article and those related to it

Joy wrote: moved category to the article's category, and marked it as such Ninio wrote: + Category : Ancient Greece
157.228.103.110 wrote: Macedon is part of Ancient Greece , hence the categorization.
Joy wrote: yes, and this is indicated by the fact that its *category* is a subcategory of the ancient Greek category
Ninio wrote: That's why the 'upper level' category needs to be added. It's *easier* to browse other subcategories and relevant articles

But there's no point in categorization if we don't subcategorize. What's next, putting everything into the "Ancient history" category? Just "History"?

No, just the most cognate (relative, concurrent if you like) categories, in order to browse through relevant articles and try to get a better understanding of the subject(s) or issue(s) in question.It's the epitome of classification.Besides there are various categorization techniques with a much less corresponding core (see Wikipedia: Category schemes). Ninio 02:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

None of that explains why all of Ancient Macedon has to be micro-classified under Ancient Greece when it's already classified as a whole under it. Sure, those kings are related to the other ancient Greek kings, but if we start duplicating every parent category, where does it end? Don't you see the slippery slope? --Joy [shallot] 10:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Heck, I can even understand putting this article there to complement its category. But Ninio has also started putting the kings of Macedon into the category for Ancient Greece even through they're already in the category for Ancient Macedon. This is just excess redundancy that serves little or no purpose.

You claim that you can understand the classification of 'Ancient Macedon/Macedon' under the 'Ancient Greece' category and then you object on the classification of 'Kings of Macedon' under the same category, which by the way was already classified under the 'Ancient Greeks' one? I feel like stating the obvious - again- but its purpose is a multi-faceted navigational scheme to complement (as you already suspect?) articles of relative nature. Ninio 02:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In fact, the only purpose I can see is that the pattern fits the profile of Vergina and the like, who have an incessant need to make sure the notion of ancient Macedon being Greek is stuffed down everyone's throats.

Hmm, so the word 'Greek' gets on your nerves... Ninio 02:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, it does not. Please read the sentence above with understanding. --Joy [shallot] 10:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Needless to mention, that's pretty petty.--Joy [shallot] 22:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's 'petty' is your disguised fractious POV which by definition is narrow, paranoiac and ambiguous. Ninio 02:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you can't expect much patience for something that can trigger nationalist edit wars — be it Greek or Slavic Macedonian or Bulgarian or whatever, there's little or no difference for someone who has to clean up the mess — after the years of vandalism Wikipedia has endured because of the topic. It needs to be handled, not ignored, because it'll just escalate eventually. And escalation on the scale of fifty articles is not something I'd like to witness or have to intervene in. --Joy [shallot] 10:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

dear anon, being Romanian has nothing to do with it. If you have anything relevant to say about the Ancient Macedonian language, kindly bring it up here. dab (ᛏ) 13:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why I'm reverting the nationalist edits

I don't expect that any nationalist (Greek or Macedonian Slav) is going to change their cherished opinions, but here is the reason why I'm reverting the partisan edits: 1)many linguists class the ancient Macedonian language as a separate extinct language, they do not class it as a Greek dialect; 2)there are a number of classical references that support classing ancient Macedonians as a separate ethnos; 3) and since linguists often class them as a separate language, automatically the implication is that they were also a separate ethnicity (language often being used to define ethnicity); given these facts, Wikipedia cannot be partisan to Greek nationalists. And given the fact that the ancient Macedonians have nothing to do with the current Macedonian Slavs, Wikipedia cannot be partisan to Macedonian Slavs either. Alexander 007 08:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I am asking of the dialect-schoolers is to supply current linguistic references that support the claim that ancient Macedonian was 100% just another Greek dialect---and I don't mean some debatable quote from Herodotus, I mean up-to-date linguistic source. Alexander 007 08:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See below Ninio 03:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See below that. Alexander 007 14:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If no such reference is provided, I can only view your edits as vandalism. If such references are provided, Wikipedia must then present both views, because I have current linguistic references that support a separate extinct Macedonian language. Trying to hide that fact is vandalism. Decius 08:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

take it easy, Decius. We're not calling such edits vandalism, and they don't last long anyway, if not backed up with academic references. There are millions of people whose nationalism is stronger than their facts, there is no reason to get worked up about one in particular. See also User talk:Miskin. Let's just wait and see if citeable sources surface, I am always open to surprises. dab (ᛏ) 15:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I'm waiting for Miskin also to present convincing references, rather than to present claims. And as I said, even if he/she provides proof that there is serious scholarly dispute and counter-evidence, both sides will have to be represented in a NPOV encyclopedia. On the other hand, if the opposing party has no real serious support, Wikipedia is not obligated to present the opposing claims as if they were genuine, as Miskin is trying to do, based on his/her personal convictions. Alexander 007 16:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And when I say both sides: I'm referring to 1) Scholarly consensus (that I'm trying to represent) as opposed to 2) Your Opinion. That other third "side" is not an issue. Alexander 007 17:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, you are not representing the general Scholarly consensus. See below. Ninio 03:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That said, the references to this 'scolarly consensus' are rather meagre, at this moment. We only have a reference to a 1973 book on Alexander, plus an external link that calls the Macedonians Dorians [1]. So in all fairness, we will need to provide more, if we want to satisfy Miskin. dab (ᛏ) 17:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That website is sponsored by the Pan-Macedonian Network, and it is a question who maintains it. I don't consider that reliable. The Dorian idea is based on Herodotus. Alexander 007 17:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph in this Wikipedia article concerning their language is accurate and is the scholarly consensus. The other issue I have is Miskin's desire to refer to ancient Macedon as the ancient Greek state---that one word needs to be backed up, because the books I've seen (here in the U.S.) all say that the state was not originally Greek, but became more & more Hellenized by Alexander's time. Decius 17:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know. But the article is for readers who don't. So, we need to cite references, otherwise we're just making claims. Why don't you mention some of these books? I've added a reference I found on the internet (but I haven't seen the actual essay) dab (ᛏ) 17:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This isn't something that should be a huge deal--especially if it is based on scholarly consensus. If however, both you and the "nationalist editors" are resigned to reverting each other, perhaps you should seek some sort of mediation to put the matter to rest.

--ElTyrant 17:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem. Decius ambigouos edits and remarks over the issue totally misrepresent the general consensus.

As can be seen by the cited reference [2] the classical academic view (consensus) is that the (ancient) Macedonian is an Aeolic dialect (being one of the 200+ ancient Greek dialects). In addition to that there may be references to the North-West Greek dialects (Locrian, Aetolian, Phocidian, Epirote).

But, After more than a century we recognise among linguists two schools of thought.

• Those who reject the Greek affiliation of Macedonian prefer to treat it as an Indo-European language of the Balkans, located geographically and linguistically between Illyrian in the west and Thracian in the east. Some, like G.Bonfante (1987), look towards Illyrian; others, like I.I.Russu (1938), towards "Thraco-Phrygian" (at the cost, sometimes, of unwarranted segmentations such as that of "Ale3avdros" into "+ale-" and "+3avd").

• Those who favour a purely Greek nature of Macedonian as a northern Greek dialect are numerous and include early scholars like A.Fick (1874) and O.Hoffmann (1906). The Greek scholars, like G.Hatzidakis (1897, etc.) and above all J.Kalleris (1964 and 1976), have turned this assumption into a real dogma, with at times nationalistic overtones. This should not prevent us, however, from inclining towards this view.

There lies *some* controversy. According to OCD the second school is considered the prevailing one. There are numerous connotations that support the Greek dialect school many of whom are presented in the article itself.

But even *IF* the other school does represent some scientific truth, then the general consensus (of this school) is that the Ancient Macedonian is a language most closely related to Greek. In that notion then it is more accurate to talk about a Hellenic branch that contains both "Greek" and Macedonian. This school is presented (and represented) by Brian D. Joseph, Professor of Linguistics, at the Ohio State University here [3]

Family: Ancient Greek is generally taken (that is the consensus) to be the only representative (though note the existence of different dialects) of the Greek or Hellenic branch of Indo-European. There is some dispute as to whether Ancient Macedonian (the native language of Philip and Alexander), if it has any special affinity to Greek at all, is a dialect within Greek (see below) or a sibling language to all of the known Ancient Greek dialects. If the latter view is correct, then Macedonian and Greek would be the two subbranches of a group within Indo-European which could more properly be called Hellenic (the consensus if it is a sibling language).

Related Languages: As noted above, Ancient Macedonian might be the language most closely related to Greek, perhaps even a dialect of Greek. The slender evidence is open to different interpretations, so that no definitive answer is really possible but most likely, Ancient Macedonian was not simply an Ancient Greek dialect on a par with Attic or Aeolic (see below). More broadly within Indo-European, Greek shows itself as a "centum" language, with a distinct outcome for the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) labiovelars, opposed to a single outcome for both the palatals and the velars of PIE. Despite some suggestive affinities to Armenian and Indo-Iranian, the general consensus is that these connections are not so strong as to warrant treating these branches as part of a larger subgroup within Indo-European. Moreover, even though culturally there are close ties in the Classical and Post-Classical periods between speakers of Greek and speakers of Latin, reflected also in Western academic circles (where courses on comparative Greek and Latin grammar are taught as part of Classical Linguistics), there is no special linguistic relationship between Greek and Latin within Indo-European.

The above paper also disputes any connotations with the Armenian language as opposed by the view expressed in the article by the phrase "but widely considered a "missing link" situated between the Greek and Armenian languages." The general consensus is that these connections are not so strong as to warrant treating these branches as part of a larger subgroup within Indo-European" despite some suggestive affinities to Armenian and Indo-Iranian.

IF the latter view is correct, then Macedonian and Greek would be the two subbranches of a group within Indo-European which could more properly be called Hellenic a view that seems to be expressed by the Linguist List sponsored by Michigan State University and Wayne State University here [4]

(You need to accept the java plug-in in order to view the whole Hellenic tree, the 1st time it might be sluggish)

Note: I am aware about the erroneous and misrepresenting views of the editor in the Talk: Ancient Macedonian language who cites ONLY the link of the list where the Ancient Macedonian is coded as XMK (former XMAC) and categorised as an extinct language. I will deal with the other cited "sources" of the above in its relevant Talk page.

In shorts:

• The classical scholastic consensus is that the Ancient Macedonian is a Greek dialect.

• If it is a separate language in the Indo-European tree then the general consensus is that it is a sibling (to the "Greek") language, both of which form the Hellenic branch. Ninio 03:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ninio, thank you for bringing references. Now, the problem is your references verify what I have said: the general consensus is that ancient Greek (the accepted dialects) is the only representative of the Hellenic branch. Macedonian is not yet included among those dialects that make up Ancient Greek (that are the only representatives of Hellenic, general consensus as you admit). The majority view is that Macedonian cannot yet be included among those Greek dialects, and so the ancient Greek dialects are the only accepted representatives of Hellenic. Though "numerous" (not most) scholars over time ("numerous" is counting those from the 19th century) have viewed Macedonian as a dialect, many do not, because voiced aspirates (kebale instead of kephale from PIE *ghebhel; danos instead of thanatos from PIE *dhwene, ade instead of aither from PIE *aidh) remained voiced (d, b, etc.), not unvoiced (th, ph, etc.). This shows a deep difference, which if you apply it to the Greek vocabulary would make for radical changes (for example, take most Greek words beginning with 'ph' and change that to a 'b', and change most 'th' to a 'd'). Also, if the intervocalic s was preserved, take all words in Greek that have lost the original 's' and add an 's' (Elios would become Selios, just by changing one initial sound, from PIE *sawel). No Greek dialect has such radical features. There are many classical references that show that Macedonians were not viewed as Hellenes (Ex: except for special cases, they were not allowed to join Olympics, etc.). That is why many linguists these days cannot view Macedonian as a Greek dialect. Alexander 007 12:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And Miskin was in no way justified in entirely erasing any mention of Macedonian as a separate language, nor is he/she (by the way, are you a he or she?) in using "Greek" to describe the ancient state ruled by Phillip, as Miskin did in earlier edits. I have no problem with the less-accepted Greek dialect view being also represented, but not represented as the majority view or as the correct view, because it is indeed incorrect. Alexander 007 12:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, your first point that "most" linguists view Macedonian as a Greek dialect is incorrect. As for your second point, that it was a sibling language to the Greek dialects (but not a dialect itself), I agree (as I have said before), though not all linguists agree. Alexander 007 12:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The major reverts Miskin was doing concerned those two issues: the paragraph about their language (which he/she just decided to totally erase), and the use of that Greek adjective in that sentence, which needs to be backed up. I'll go to the local libraries again these days and start citing more references. Alexander 007 17:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I got some books on ancient Greece too actually---let me see if they discuss Macedon. Be back. Alexander 007 18:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Leaving aside language, I'm going to tackle in a few quotes (just from the books I have now) the issue whether they can be called Hellenes (=Greeks). I found in one of my books a quote of Isocrates from his Address to Philip where Isocrates distinguishes between Hellenes and Macedonians, and also a quote from Demosthenes' Phillipics where Demosthenes explicitly says that the Macedonians were not Greeks. Wait up while I type the Isocrates quote. Alexander 007 18:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First the Isocrates quote, which is not as explicit as Demosthenes but still clear. First of all, according to this textbook (which I'll name later), Isocrates saw in Phillip (King of Macedon) "the potential savior of Greece", so Isocrates was not anti-Macedonian. Nevertheless, Isocrates does not class Macedonians as Hellenes: here Isocrates is addressing Phillip: " I see that it is incumbent upon you to work for the good of the Hellenes, to reign as king over the Macedonians, and to extend your power over the greatest possible number of the barbarians. For if you do these things, all men are grateful to you: the Hellenes for your kindness to them; the Macedonians, if you reign over them, not like a tyrant, but like a king; and the rest of the nations, if by your hands they are delivered from barbaric despotism and are brought under the protection of Hellas. " ---You can see that here Macedonians are named as another nation, not as Hellenes. Demosthenes is even more explicit. Wait a moment. Alexander 007 18:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Demosthenes now, speaking less enthusiastically of the same king Phillip: " Phillip---a man who not only is no Greek, and no way akin to the Greeks, but is not even a barbarian from a respectable country---no, a pestilent fellow of Macedon, a country from which we never get even a decent slave." There are more such classical references, but I don't know if I have them now in these books. I'll try to get exact chapters and lines for these quotes later. Such references, added to the linguistic consensus, are quite a strong case against the view that they were Greeks speaking a Greek dialect. Alexander 007 18:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And I just found these quotes in two books I even forgot I own. One is William L. Langer , Western Civilization, Second Edition, 1975 (an old university textbook), and the other is H. G. Wells' The Outline of History, Revised, 1961. Alexander 007 18:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, your new edit can be considered a compromise---though the use of the adjective "Greek" to apply to the ancient state of Macedon is still not accurate, and it still has to be backed up---but I won't erase it now, leaving you time to find references (though you have no desire to). Alexander 007 20:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

but I will. The Macedon state was the Macedon state. If you want to apply adjectives to it, the burden of proof lies with you. Now "Greek" or "Hellenic", by any stretch of the term, is coupled with language. The earliest characteristics of Greek dialects, separating it from PIE, are loss of word-initial / intervocalic s, and de-voicing of aspirates. I don't know about s in Macedonian, but danos is compelling evidence that aspirates were not de-voiced. Hence, Macedonian is no Greek dialect (unless you want to claim PIE itself was one), hence the ancient, pre-500 BC Macedonian state, was not "Greek". End of story. dab (ᛏ) 07:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Greek" vs. "Hellenic"

Can anybody wanting to argue the distinction of these terms have a look at Greek (name) and Hellenes? The short story is, they are equivalent. As it happens, the Greek gouvernment (!) tried to replace 'Greek' with 'Hellenic' in English use. In linguistics, most certainly, there is no notion of a "Hellenic" branch ancestral, but not identical with the Greek branch. It is a matter of choice whether you prefer to speak of "Greek dialects" or of "Hellenic languages", the two are identical. Now if, for example, Macedonian had some features unique to Greek, but were lacking others (e.g. loss of s, but no de-voicing), one could introduce a new term like "Hellenoid" or "Graeco-Macedonian", or "Graeco-Illyrian" etc. These are however not terms currently used. Any "Graeco-Something" group would seem to be identical with "Balkans languages" (Illyrian, Phrygian, Thracian, maybe Dacian and Armenian, ask Decius, I don't know the details). My point is, you cannot just coin a term "Hellenic" that by definition extends to "Greek and Macedonian, but nothing else", that would just be arbitrary. Of course, Greek nationalists seem inclined to do exactly that, but they do not have the authority to just redefine linguistic terminology. thank you. dab (ᛏ) 13:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let me throw in my inexpert 2 drachmae, based on 1yr of Anc Gk Hist: Greek=Athens/Sparta, Hellenic=Macedonia. Hellenic came to =Greek thanks to Alex3 & conquest of Egypt (esp). Trekphiler 18:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"Hellenic" meant "civilized" or "enlightened". Thus it was possible to be Greek but not Hellenic... John Miller

Oxford Classical Dictionary

I'm going to go to a library and see the actual Oxford Classical Dictionary entry. Alexander 007 16:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It may be so. see [5]: the conclusion is repeated, and more background is given. Thus, it seems that since the mid-1990s the Greek hypothesis has gained credibility. By all means we should make note of this, attributing the position to Olivier Masson. Note that it's still a long shot from "we may tentatively conclude that Macedonian is a dialect related to North-West Greek" to putting "the Greek state of Macedon" in the intro. But I think we should organize the article now in a way that gives equal representation of linguists who think Macedonian is a Greek dialect and those who don't. I'm still nonplussed how Masson could just chalk up "Berenike" for "Ferenike" as a "local pronunciation", when no other Greek dialect has that. But we may be stumbling into territory where it is not clear what exactly are the boundaries of the term "Greek". Of course, poor Prof. Masson couldn't finish his sentence "Macedonian may be a Greek dialect after all" before the Greek nationalists jump all over him with jubilant shouts of "we knew it!" :o) dab (ᛏ) 16:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

reply to self, there appears to have been a stout effort of Greek scholarship to 'spirit away' the inconvenient mediae, see [6]

Babiniotis G., 1992. The Question of Mediae in Ancient Macedonian Greek Reconsidered. Historical Philology: Greek, Latin and Romance. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 87. Amsterdam.

(what sort of conclusion is reached in this essay should be clear from its title ;)

another interesting reference may be

Borza, Eugene N., Before Alexander: Constructing Early Macedonia,

apparently a more conservative researcher, judging from the venomous remarks from the Greeks [7]

An overview of recent scholarship and archaeology, with Borza's recycled views on the history and language of the Makedones. P. 43: "Macedonian and Greek were sufficiently different as late as the time of Alexander the Great as to require interpreters." An unsupportable statement ... Borza censures Dr. Georgia Karametrou-Menteside, the excavator of Aiane [Kozane], etc., of injecting “nationalist archaeology” in her overviews of excavated material. However, there is an antithesis in this criticism, for, if Karametrou-Menteside interprets the evidence as proof of the Makedones being Greeks, Borza, on the other hand, goes beyond the meden agan to show that the Makedones are not Greeks [more correctly Hellenes, because the term Greeks is loaded with modern, political overtones] ... REVIEW: Konrad H. Kinzl, BMCR 2001.02.21 0nline. An overfriendly review.

This last point constitutes one of several of B’s compelling arguments in favour of a distinct Makedonian identity and ethnicity, a conclusion which will no doubt incense those who practise “nationalistic” (34ff. — although “chauvinistic” is perhaps more appropriate a term) history. B is “strongly opposed” also to attempts “to define the Macedonians in terms of some other people”: they were “a unique people in antiquity who gradually became Hellenized, and who are unrelated to any modern people” (39 n. 21). Then there is the obvious argument from language — which we do not know and which therefore lends itself to mischievous application by those who study the Makedonians not for scholarly but for political purposes. B concludes his chapter on the Makedonians’ ethnicity by pointing out that, whatever we may believe, to the ancient authors “the Greeks and Macedonians were two different peoples” (43).

dab (ᛏ) 16:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Masson's ideas are bullshit, but they should be represented as an opposing voice. He does not attempt to explain the sound-change differences---that are from Proto-Indo-European. Decius 16:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

yes, but at least we have a reference now, rather than just somebody stubbornly inserting "Greek". That's a step forward. dab (ᛏ) 16:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem of calling it or not calling ancient Macedon a Greek state needs to in fact be dealt with in the article. But it shouldn't be inserted right up front, since there is great disagreement, and in fact the argument that it wasn't Greek has more evidence. Decius 16:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

of course. I say we talk about the state of Macedon, bla bla, Philipp, Alexander, etc., and then there will be a "Hellenic controversy" section, where both sides, at the moment headed by Borza and by Masson, will be presented, with all the evidence from ancient authors, that Herodotus thought they were Dorians (while Masson thinks they are NW Greeks!), that they needed interpreters, and what not. The controversy should not hold the article hostage, but should be confined to its own section. In the intro, we could have a statement like "the "Greek" or "Hellenic" character of the ancient Macedonians is disputed, a scholarly controversy that sometimes takes on polemic and nationalist overtones, and essentially hinges on the exact definition of these terms". dab (ᛏ) 17:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Decius 17:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Berenike

Berenike meant 'Victory-bearing', bere being from PIE *bher (=to bear), while in Greek (all dialects) the form became phere. Macedonian changed 'bh' to 'b'. Latin also changed 'bh' to 'f' here (fero) as in Greek, while Albanian like Macedonian changed it to 'b' (barrë). Anyway, yet another example of Macedonian having voiced, while all the Greek dialects have unvoiced (ph,th). Decius 18:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

yes, that's what I was trying to say. But you seem to claim examples of intervocalic s? Are there any examples of that? I imagine the "Hellenists" claim the voicing is secondary: since there very few voiceless aspirates in PIE, the de-voicing would in principle be reversible (assuming that the orthography berenike represents phonematic /bherenike/) dab (ᛏ) 19:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to track the exact examples down. This preservation of 's' was mentioned in this website, which generally has no gross errors, but sometimes small errors. I'll get the address in a minute. Decius 19:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Talk: Ancient Macedonian language. Decius 19:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hellenic controversy

This controversy on whether or not the ancient Macedonians can be considered Hellenes should even have its own Wikipedia article, so it can be expanded with many quotes. Miskin's new edits are at least better than what Miskin was doing before, but they still need to be to Wikipedia standard of NPOV and encyclopedic tone. There shouldn't be any attempt to hide data that rejects or supports the "Greek dialect" view. Wikipedia has to be Neutral. The same thing with the language article: if credible references are brought against the separate language classification, it will be mentioned alongside. Decius 19:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The quote about the Greek fleet does not prove that they were considered Hellenes, and the quote about the Macedonian royal family being often considered Greek (as they claimed) can only apply to the Royal familiy not the entire people. Alexander I (claimed descent from Perdiccas) was almost barred (because he was Macedonian), but his Royal status and Royal claim of Greek descent made them allow him to enter. Decius 19:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think you should have done this research before posing as an expert?

Actually in my last posts I was being sarcastic because I had assumed that you were coming from a biased point of view and wouldn't be willing to listen. Yes I also agree that the quoations should have their own article as well, but in the meantime we should have to write something correct, neutral and unbiased in the Macedon section as well (something that currently is not happening).

I didn't want to imply that Borza was making this up, I just wanted to point out how his theories are not accepted and how I consider it ridiculous to quote him. If you want to argue by presenting modern sources consider Macedonians because I think you will lose very quickly (pick up a book at random). To argue directly with linguistics is also pointless since all theories about the Macedonian language are based on assumptions, all archaelogical and linguistic evidence we have from them is Greek, and it would be like ignoring of the conclusions of all scholars who are not themselves linguists. By ignoring their research would be like re-inventing the wheel. I also agree that language is the most basic link to culture and therefore ethnicity. The whole debate starts I think the best way to solve this is by bringing up every direct evidence we can gather ourselves. By direct here I mean ancient literary and archaeological sources.

Exactly---the information we put in the article has to come from credible sources. Yet, sometimes people read too much into ancient quotes: The quote about Amyntas only proves what we already knew: that the Macedonian Royal family claimed Greek descent (at least in part), and that this claim was often accepted by Greeks. Decius 19:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Leaving aside Borza, who entered the dispute only lately and who is only one out of many, the classification of ancient Macedonian as a separate language is common and indeed, from what I've seen (off and on the net), outnumbers the linguists who want to view it as a dialect. If one of these is "unaccepted", it is the dialect-hypothesis. Decius 21:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The dialect-hypothesis these days is mostly held onto by some historians (not linguists) who are indulging their pan-Hellenic views (whether they are French, or British, or whatever the case). Decius 21:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also...

>>The quote about the Greek fleet does not prove that they were considered Hellenes, and the quote about the Macedonian royal family being often considered Greek (as they claimed) can only apply to the Royal familiy not the entire people.

Are you forgetting my very first quoation of Herodotus' accounts on the Dorian origin of the Macedonian people? All Greek historians who wrote about Macedonia had travelled there, they weren't guessing. Herodotus is by many considered fallible, and he might have been that, but what he could not have been is a liar. He couldn't have been stupid enough to go to Macedonia and report in detail how those Greek tribes settled there. He just had not reason to do that, no matter how much some people are bothered by that. The Greek city-states were not politically involved with Macedon in the 6th century BC (which was relatively a new kingdom to them) but that has nothing to do with whether Macedonians were Greeks are not (at least as we define as Greeks at the time, by means of language and religion).

>>Alexander I (claimed descent from Perdiccas) was almost barred (because he was Macedonian), but his Royal status and Royal claim of Greek descent made them allow him to enter. Decius 19:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. There's no implication that Alexander was banned because he was Macedonian. I don't see how you can reach to that conclusion right after reading Herodotus' account on the origin of the Macedonian people. As I stated before Macedon was at the time a relatively new Kingdom to the advanced Greek city states (which was for some time under Persian occupation). Herodotus doesn't state that Macedonians did NOW participate in the Pan-Hellenics, he's letting us now how they STARTED participating to them (the fact that they later did is common knowledge). Also I didn't bring up Herodotus as the sole evidence of a Macedonian Greekness, but because he's our oldest historical source. As his first book opens, Herodotus states that Persians were the best knowledge in writing history (much older to them than to the Greeks), and the Persian 6th-7th BC refer to the Macedonians as the "Greeks wearing hats". Even in the New Testament (parts from the 3BC) Macedon is referred to as another Greek state. And I said before, the evidence is countless. Repeated coincidence stops being a coincidence.

Miskin

"Wrong" according to You. The implication is there, as good as if it was explicitly stated. You bring up Herodotus' Dorian account (actually, it is a legend, as legend is defined: quite possibly not actual history), I bring up Herodotus' Olympic reference, as well as Isocrates, Demosthenes, et cetera. Decius 20:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, this is really sad. I'm not even talking about the content, but the messy state you left the article in shows all to clearly that you are not interested in the result, as long as it says "Greek Greek Greek" on the page. What with all the ugly formatting? Why the oh-so-pointed remark that some people choose to ignore that Alexander was eventually allowed to run, right after the part where we stated exactly that? My advice to you is: read, think, edit, in this sequence. I didn't revert you for now, since you added some value, but don't think that I'm going to make a habit of cleaning up after you like that. dab (ᛏ) 20:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

M

>>: "Wrong" according to You. The implication is there, as good as if it was explicitly stated. You bring up Herodotus' Dorian account (actually, it is a legend, as legend is defined: quite possibly not actual history), I bring up Herodotus' Olympic reference, as well as Isocrates, Demosthenes, et cetera.

The only myth in that case is the Macedonian Royal family's descent from Hercules and nothing else. But even if we assume that Herodotus was wrong about the Dorian origin of Macedon and about the Argive origin of Alexander I. We already know for a fact that Herodotus travelled to Macedonia (and many other places) s do you actually think that he was stupid enough give an exact account of the Greek origin of Macedonians if they were not even Greek in the first place (unless you support that he intentionally wanted to lie)? Or do you think he was as retarded to travel and live in Macedon and not be able to realize whether they were Greeks or not. Demosthenes on the other hand he only badmouths Philip and hardly ever Macedonians in general, and that's purely for political reasons (Demosthenes himself was only half-greek). In his speech he always talks about the superiority of the Athenian nation over the rest of Greeks. He accuses Macedon for forcing itself to the Amphictyonic league, a league in which not all Greek city and Kingdom-states had the right to participate (they were voted). He insists on how the older Macedonian Kings always paid allegiance to Athens, and that Athens should pay allegiance to nobody. He also compares the conflict between Athens and Macedon with the Peloponnesian war. In short, if you read the entire of Demosthenes' speeches (and not just the isolated quations) you'll see that he DOES consider Macedonians to be Greeks. And as for Isocrates, I don't know what's the point mentioning him, he's actually disproving as well. His cause is a pan-Hellenic excursion against Persia under Macedonian Hegemony. You claim to be neutral and against nationalist but ironically your views have been affected by the propaganda that exists on the internet.

As for "only" the Macedonian royal family and Alexander participating in the Olympics and the rest of the Pan-Hellenics, what can I say, that only serves as a joke. Do you think that just any Greek could go sign up for the Olympics and the other pan-hellenic events as if they were the "pie-eating" competitions of my local village? News Flash but no. Every competitor in the Olympic Games and every participant in the Pan-Hellenic events would represent an entire Greek nation-state, pretty much like today.

Finally as for the Persians being assumed as idiots who couldn't distinct the differences between people in their own country (because at some point both Macedon and Ionia were part of the Persian Empire), well what I can say, I hope you realize how riciculous and ignorant that assumption sounds. People tend to think that in antiquity societies were just abstract grouping of people and not much different from the Homo-Erectus or Gorilla hurds of today. They just can't realize that some people actually had real civilizations, in many ways probably more advanced than ours. PS, Titus Livius was not Macedonian himself but in that specific quote, he quotes a Macedonian.

Oh, and Dab,

It's not about me wanting the hear the word "Greek, Greek, Greek", it's more about you being afraid to say it, in case you get accused or attacked by ignorant Bulgarian nationalists. So that's what bothers me the most, the fact that you people choose to blind yourselves from the truth out of fear of trouble. My position is to reveal the TRUTH and nothing but that. This has NOTHING to do with Modern Greece and FYROM, it's about you people insulting those great historical personalities that you're supposedly trying to protect. Do you want to imagine what Macedonians considered yourselves? I'll give you some hints:

"And Alexander (III) said to them: Now you fear punishment and beg for your lives, so I will let you free, if not for any other reason so that you can see the difference between a Greek king and a barbarian tyrant, so do not expect to suffer any harm from me. A king does not kill messengers."

[Kallisthenes 1.37.9-13]

"Your ancestors invaded Macedon and the rest of Greece and did us harm although we had not done you any previous injury. I have been appointed commander-in-chief of the Greeks and it is with the aim of punishing the Persians that I have crossed into Asia, since you are the aggressors."

[Arrian, Alexander’s Anabasis – 2.14]

"Not content with this, you have shown your contempt for right and your hostility to me by actually sending an embassy to urge the king of Persia to declare war on me. This is the most amazing exploit of all; for, before the king reduced Egypt and Phoenicia,1 you passed a decree calling on me to make common cause with the rest of the Greeks against him, in case he attempted to interfere with us;"

Philip's letter to the Athenians - [Demosthenes - Speeches 11 - 20]

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0072;query=section%3D%2329;layout=;loc=12.5

As for what the linguists think as opposed to historians... You speak as if historians, linguists and archaelogists work completely separately. Please try to come up with some serious arguments. EVERY single Macedonian archaeological and literary evidence was written in Greek, (in a dialect not similar to Attic - which was the elitist). As far as history can go, every single Macedonian toponym and name is Greek. Even the Macedonian coinage that dates almost to 6th century BC is found to be Greek, if a coin is not readable by its own people then it's useless. I mean what more evidence do you need to realize that what looks like a frogs, walks like a frog, and sounds like a frog, IT IS a damn frog.

http://www.usask.ca/antiquities/coins/macedonia.html

I know this: there is as yet no discovered evidence that proves that the ancient Macedonians (speaking here of the general populace) spoke a Greek dialect in pre-expansion (pre-Philip II) times. Those coins, unfortunately, mostly bear only names (of personages, places, etc.). It walks like a frog, and it is a frog, but probably a different species of frog than the one you expect. The idea that the ancient Macedonians spoke a separate language is so common (though not unanimous of course) that in my American Heritage Dictionary (first edition, 1969; see new editions below) under Macedonian we find these definitions, on page 780: "1. A native or inhabitant of ancient or modern Macedonia. 2. The language of ancient Macedonia, having characteristics regarded as Indo-European. " A dialect of Greek is not mentioned. Of course, this is just one book, but many books support the language not dialect theory. Decius 21:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is what the new Online edition of American Heritage (4th edition, year 2000) says: 2. "The language of ancient Macedonia, of uncertain affiliation within Indo-European.". [8]. Here is what the Merriam-Webster Online English Dictionary (2005) says:"3. The language of ancient Macedonia of uncertain afffinity but generally assumed to be Indo-European." [9]. I wasn't exaggerrating when I said most linguists support a separate language (that's what I meant by consensus). I never said that every scholar agrees. Decius 21:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Consensus in English is defined as Collective opinion or concord; general agreement or accord. It does not mean "unanimous" agreement. So I was correct when I said that the scholarly consensus is that ancient Macedonian was a separate language. Decius 22:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem with names on ancient coins is illustrated by this example: Nicarchus is a Greek name, but it was also the name of a Paionian king, and his name was written on Paionian coins in Greek letters (Nicarchou is the transliteration): [10]. The Nicarchus coin is at the bottom. Decius 23:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can also see that one of the coins of Audoleon (another Paionian king) says Basileos Audoleon in Greek letters. Basileus is a Greek word (of unknown origin) that meant 'king' (and that's common knowledge). Yet the Paionians were not Greeks, as all ancient authors made clear. Decius 00:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another thing: while it is true that most linguists class ancient Macedonian as a separate language, it is not true that "most" historians consider it a Greek dialect. What I said is that among the scholars that consider it a dialect, most of those scholars are historians and classicists, not linguists. And notice that both Nicholas G. L. Hammond (born 1903, died 2001) and Olivier Masson (died 1998?) never bothered to address the linguistic issues, which is why linguists in general have not accepted their views of a Greek dialect. Decius 06:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Macedon language

Decius, calm down a bit. In your analysis you try so hard to prove that Macedonians were not a Greek tride that you are making serious linguistic mistakes. For example, are you serious when you present the word berenike as an example of your theory? Using your kind of logic then the Doric dialect was not a Greek one but closely related to Greek since it doesn't follow the rest dialects and turns η into α Rest η μητηρ, doric α ματαρ (=mother) rest Λεωνιδης doric λεωνιδας (=Leonidas),uses different rotts of verbs for example μολων instead of ιων,etc,etc. The sad truth is that we don't have enough data to classify what exactly macedon language was -about 700 words.Certainly it has Illyrian and Thracian influence but we don't know how big it was.In your examples of macedon words I noticed that mystiriously you present only those that have differences with the Greek,why?Whats your linguistic opinion about the rest?For example the cities Liti,Europos,Ichnae,Tyrissa,Edessa,Veroia,Lychnidos,Argos Oresticon,Aeani,Mieza,Dion,Azoros,Leivithra,Pella,Aegae,etc? What about the personal names Ptolemaeos,Antipatros,Kleopatra,Polysperchon,Nikolaos,Amyntas,Perdikkas,etc? What about the words sarissa,makedonissa,makedonia,etc? What about the comedy of Strattis of around 400BC were an Athinaean talks with a Macedonian?(And the second is saying Ωττικοι instead of Αττικοι and υμες instead of υμεις? Why there is NOT A SINGLE ONE inscription written in other language but greek in Macedonia? EVERYBODY has the right to his opinion you can't forbit others to present their theories just because you don't like them.Present yours and let the reader to decide.

And something else since we don't know exactly what macedonians were it's against the NPOV policy of Wikipedia to write Hellenization I corrected it into Rise of Macedon and I urge not to change it

Okay, let me clear up some issues here: I am not presenting my own theories here, I am presenting theories that scholars have already put forward: these theories of a separate language represent the majority view among language-scholars, so Wikipedia has to represent them more than the dialect-view; Berenike and the other examples are examples that have already been given as evidence for a separate language, they are not my examples, so even if they were wrong examples they would not be my errors: but they are not wrong examples. Also, I did not write that big Hellenization headline in the article, I think User:Dbachmann did: I suppose it would be okay if it is removed, though most scholars (the majority) would vote to include such a term, since it is probably an accurate description of what happened. Last point about dialects: I already know about such differences, and so do the scholars who study the ancient Macedonian language: nevertheless, they view Macedonian as having been even more different, that's why the majority of scholars (and also Dictionaries & Encyclopedias; at least in the West) do not consider Macedonian to have been a dialect. Decius 18:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I have already said,since we can't be sure about their language,then everybody can present a theory.I'm sorry but you are wrong when you claim that most linguists consider Macedonian to be a different language than Greek.I'm starting to believe that you don't like the idea that Macedonian were a Greek dialect.From the 700 words saved to us only the 5% may haven't Greek origin and all those who claim the same with you don't explain why the rest has Greek origin,or why we haven't found ANY inscription but Greek, or at least why the archaelogical findings(pottery,artifacts,temples,burial customs,etc) are similar to Greek ones and not different like those of Illyrians and Thracians.

Odysseas 07:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See: Talk: Ancient Macedonian language. I will find more quotes to further establish that most do indeed consider it separate. Decius 20:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but not 'everybody' can present a theory. You should, at the very least, be familiar with the historical grammar (and phonology) of the Greek language. If you were, you would know that the de-voicing of aspirates is considered a feature of Proto-Greek, unlike the a->e change. Therefore, yes, the Bernike example makes a very strong case for Macedonian not being derived from the Proto-Greek language scholars have been describing for 200 years now. Any discussion of the status of Macedonian will include this argument, so it should neither be removed, nor be enriched with made-up counter arguments that have no basis in an understanding of the history of the Greek language. So, Odysseas, if you want to see a "Hellenic" POV here, find scholars who support it (as we already do with Masson). It's not just a matter of anyone's guess. Decius is not trying to remove the reference to Masson's opinion. Linguists hardly tend to group Macedonian with Greek, but if classicists tend to group them together for cultural or whatever reasonse, of course we will mention that opinion. There is some belief in a "Graeco Macedonian" linguistic branch, but "Graeco-Macedonian" does not equal "Hellenic". dab (ᛏ) 11:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thucydides adds his Testimony

Thucydides also distinguished between Macedonians and Hellenes (and to me, Thucydides is one of the most objective and reliable of the ancient authors). Here is a quote from Thucydides:

"Brasidas and Perdiccas started on a second joint expedition into Lyncus against Arhhabaeus; the latter (Perdiccas) with the forces of his Macedonian subjects, and a corp of heavy infantry composed of Hellenes domiciled in the country (of Macedon)..."---Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 4.124.

Here is another quote from Thucydides:

"...For the Lynkestae and Elimiots, and other tribes more inland, though Macedonians by blood, and allies and dependants of their kindred (the Macedonians), still have their own separate governments."

Macedonians by blood is an interesting phrase. I will post more classical references, but this isn't even about just ancient quotes, it's about the predominant modern view. Decius 04:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think from the material accumulated now it is clear to any independent observer that Macedon was not 'Hellenic' at all in the 6th century, and that it became Hellenized over the following two centuries, beginning with the upper class (Hellenic superstratum), members of which could be considered Hellenic for the purposes of the Panhellenic Games as opposed to the rural population, and that Macedon can be considered Hellenic from the 4th century BC onward. So that the answer to the question "was Macedon 'Hellenic'" will depend entirely on what year the question refers to. dab (ᛏ) 11:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Macedonian language and it's connection with Greek

We will begin presenting some ancient sources which declare their connection with Greeks.First we have the persian inscription of 513 BC which talks about the nations which are under thei control, it speaks about Yauna Takabara in Balkan area meaning Greeks with big hats.The only nation in the balkans that had a distinguish hat where the macedonians, whith the καυσία(kafsia) hut (Walser, Die Volkerschaften auf den Reliefs von Persepolis-1966 47 E) Herodotus clearly declares that the dorians where created by the unification of the madeonians with other nations. Hellanius presents the father of macedonians, Macedon, is son of Aiolos meaning that he considered them an aeolian greek tride (Hellanius,FGrHist 4,74).Arrian (Arrian,Alexandrou Anavassis 2. 14. 4.) writes that Alexander on his letter to Dareius wrote Your ancestors came in Macedonia and rest of Greece and assaulted us.After i became leader of the Greeks i came to asia to willing to punish Persians.The phrase macedonia and rest of greece is also present in the treaty between Annibas and Philip V (Polybius, 7. 8. 9.).Also in Titus Livius (31. 29. 15.) where he places macedonians among aetolians as greek tribes.Also in Polybius (5. 103. 9.) where Agelaus from Nafpactos wishes to end wars among Aetolians and Macedonians intergreek wars as he names them.The Efessians from an inscription in Efessos (SIG 867, 38-40) ...in the macedonians and the rest Greek tribes...

Let's continue whith linguistics...

Evidences:

In a scene of the comedy Macedonians written by the poet Strattis of arount 400BC an athenaean asks a macedonian: η σφυραινα δ'έστι τις;(=what is sfyraena?-kind of fish-) and the macedonian replay: κέστραν ύμμες ωττικοί κικλήσκετε (=that thing that you Athenaeans call kestra-other kind of fish-).It needs to be pointed that Athenaean comedians presented barbarians to speak bad Greek mived with foreign words but other greek tribes to speak in their own dialects.The macedonian in the passage is speaking greek with dialecting elements ,ύμμες instead of υμείς ωττικοί instead αττικοί κικλήσκετε instead κεκλησκετε.

Alexander speaking to the 30000 persians he took to his army says to them: learn the greek language and macedonian army doctrines (Plutarch Life of Alexander 47, 3).From this passage we understand that macedonian soldiers 'spoke greek it's absurd for Alexander to force persians to learn greek if the macedonians weren't speaking greek since they would fight together.

Words: Macedonian words (apart from pesonal and city names)saved to us directly are 112.From them 63 come from ancient dictionaries and 47 from ancient sources.Those from ancient sources are all greek,those from dictionaries 50 are greek and 13 of unknown indoeuropean origin.

Personal names: Apart from the names Μακεδονια,Μακεδονες of clear greek origin from μακος(=length), we have the names of some macedonian tribes, hundreds of personal names(I've already given you),dozens of cities(also I've already given you), rivers,names of gods(Ploutonas,Persephoni,Dionysos,Estia,Iraklis,asklipios,Okeanos,etc) 6 names of fests(Peritia,Telessias, Xanthika,Arantides,etc)and 12 of months(Avdnaeos,Ippalkmos,Xandikos,Peritios,Yperaeretis,etc). For the names of the macedonian tribes Elimiotae,Lyngestae and Orestae.The first is clearly of greek origin,the second has the prefix -st- which is present in Illyrian names and the third is also greek not only in the root Ores-,but also in the ending -tae.As I proved to you before the nanes of cities and rivers (Aliakmon,etc) are greek, could you explain to me how it is possible for a non greek nation to give greek names to cities,rivers and mountains?Or how it is possible to have greek names for gods,fests and months?I'm really curious.From the personal names the 95% has greek origin and the 5% of illyrian and thracian.All the names of months and fests are greek.There is no reply for these facts from those who support that macedonians where not a greek tribe.

Connection of macedonian and other greek dialects

1)Macedonian and western Greek dialects

-dd- instead of -zz-

example the common names between these dialects Drykalos and Pefkestas

2)macedonian and aeolic

-nn- instaed of -sn- or -n- example the common word between these dialects Kranna(fountain) doric krana,attic krene the common name Xennias

3)macedonian and thessalic

-ω- instaed of -ου-

4)macedonian and arcadic

-in- instead of -en-

example the common word between these dialects zerethron(=stair)

Examples of macedonian words from ancient sources and dictionaries You can find the full catalog of macedonian words in this book:Hoffman, O. Pauly-Wissova, Real-Encyclopadie. d.kl. Altertumswiss Makedonia col.681-97

dramis(=type of bread) comes from the IE root *dera-/*deru-, dromis in achaic, dara-tos(<*dra-tos) in thessalian. daryllos instead of doryllos in achaic and in attic drys comes from *dru- means oak kammarae instead of kommorae meanig a kind of fish kynopes common word with doric akronoi common word with doric doa common word with doric akontion akontio in modern greek aspilos same word in modern greek Common creation of personal names and words with doric using endings -ator(Nikator),-asion(korasion) Common convesion of -η- into -α- with doric doric Sparta attic Sparte, macedonian kefala attic kefale Common grammar phenomenon with doric maced./doric Pafsania attic Pafsaniou,macedonian Perdikka attic Perdikkou Common creation of words ending in -an intead of -aon maced./doric peligan attic peligaon Common conversion of -os into -as with doric doric emerodromas attic emerodramas,macedonian voukefalas attic voukefalos (βους + κεφαλη =ox + head) it's Alexander's horse meaning the one with the head like an ox

Want more? Odysseas

You're really not used to thinking in diachronic terms, are you? Most of the placenames in the USA are English. Does that prove the Sioux were Anglo-Saxons? Everybody in Macedonia spoke Slavic in 900 AD. Does that prove the ancient Macedonians were Slavs? Nobody doubts that Alexander spoke Greek and had a horse with a Greek name, because the Macedonian aristocracy had been thoroughly hellenized. We can agree that Alexander was a Hellene, if you like, because of that. That doesn't make the Ancient Macedonian language, of which I agree precious little is known, a Hellenic language. Your only point is that the Persians thought the Macedonians were Greeks with funny hats, back in 513. I wouldn't care a fig if the Macedonians had been Greeks. It's just that evidence points towards Hellenization. dab (ᛏ) 15:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me for me altitude but I don't think you even bothered to read what I edited.Your hostility against everything Greek astonishes me!!! You wrote that macedonians were hellenized after the 5th century Where are the archaeological evidences of your theory? Do you want linguist and historians that support my opinion?: Abel,Hoffmann,Kalleris,Muller,Sturz,Weingand,Fick,Droysen,Hammond,etc do you even know them? Or are you will even dare to question their scientific level? Odysseas

bollocks, I like Greeks (not necessarily including you). You're simply driving home the point on the deplorable level of this discussion now. So yes, please, just quote authorities from now on, we'll work their opinions into the article. dab (ᛏ) 16:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You also wrote Most of the placenames in the USA are English. Does that prove the Sioux were Anglo-Saxons? What kind of logic are you using? The Sioux have left us remrant of their culture and clear evidences of their language.According to you suddenly in the 5th century macedonians decided to adopt greek ,changed their personal names,the names of their cities,rivers,gods,etc...It's pretty pathetic logic this one...Odysseas Oh! And something else that Everybody in Macedonia spoke Slavic in 900 AD is pretty funny...I bet you also support with passion Falmerayer's theory about modern Greeks,right'?Odysseas

I am not passionate about this at all. I simply read books about it, out of interest. I don't know if there is such a thing as "Slavic genes", for my purposes, somebody who speaks Greek natively is a Greek. So, yes, the Macedonians of Hellenism were Greeks, clearly. I'm sorry, but back in 863 AD you couldn't buy a radish on the Thessaloniki market if you didn't speak Slavic. But that's more than 1000 years ago now, and more than 1000 years after the time we are talking about here. My point is, make clear what time we are talking about. Macedonia was "Greek" by 300 BC, fine. It may have been "Ancient Macedonian", but not Greek, 200 years before that. People have called this process 'Hellenization'. I do not know it it is important for the Greek nation. I do not think so. It's just an interesting bit of history. dab (ᛏ) 17:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those pathetic theories of Falmerayer which you so easily reproduce here have been debacled (mainly from Karl Kopf) already from the mid 19th century...They are unworthy of commentation...Odysseas

My opinion about macedonians is that they were speaking an early form of doric greec, propably even a distinguished dialect.When they settled in the region they mixed with local indoeuropean and possible with pre-indoeuropiean tribes such as Paeonians,Phrygians,etc.On a later stage while they where expanding they included illyrian and thracian elements.But i believe it no one can prove the existence of a greco-macedonian language.Most evidences show to us that their language was a greek dialect or at least a form of greek.Many others (not greek)have supported this theory.Odysseas

hello? I didn't subscribe to any theories above. It's the Balkans. There were incursion. There is no such thing as a "pure Hellenic race". Graeco-Macedonian is what you claim. The alternative would be Macedonian as independent IE dialect. I don't think this discussion leads any further. Let's just quote authorities. Give us your non-Greek scholars (like Masson), and we will include them (but with full references please). We will say the question is controversial, of course (we have done that all along!), but we won't imply that either side of the controversy is in any sense "obvioulsy right". I appreciate Macedonian may be considered Greek in "some sense", but unfortunately not necessarily in the sense that linguists use to define "Greek". It boils down to a question of terminology, that's the long and short of it. dab (ᛏ) 05:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is biased

Odysseas don't waste your breath. No matter the number or the importance of the points you're making, it's no use. Those people obviously have made up their minds and don't care for evidence. They're not interested in writing the truth, they're only interested in writing something that will make them feel more "neutral". This is why I stopped debating, the arguments I received were ludicrous (e.g. Macedonians pronounced words differently, therefore they spoke a different language). They don't even care of what Philip and Alexander the Great or have on the topic. They only care about what some guy wrote in ONE dictionary in order to be politically correct. They probably even unaware of the fact that USA government had in one of its official maps the province of Macedonia in Northern Greece as a region under foreign occupation (until it got spotted and apologised for).

dab said:

"It's the Balkans. There were incursion. There is no such thing as a "pure Hellenic race".

What kind of a ignorant comment was that? There's no "pure Hellenic race", because it's in the Balkans?? According to simple propositional logic, the above statement implies that there are pure races, but NOT in the Balkans, right? So what kind of non-Balkan pure races are there? What part of the world has never been invaded?? Or what parts of Europe have been invaded less than the Balkans, so that their peoples can claim a purer descent? I'm so curious to know... What's next? A quote from Mein Kampf? Miskin

" I appreciate Macedonian may be considered Greek in "some sense", but unfortunately not necessarily in the sense that linguists use to define "Greek". It boils down to a question of terminology, that's the long and short of it."

Don't you think that contradicts your Hellenization theory? Miskin

I shouldn't even reply to this. two brief points:

• no, there are no "pure races" in an absolute sense. Historically, this is especially true for the Balkans, because a lot of people kept migrating/invading there.
• it's not "my" hellenization theory, and yes, according to the usual definition of "Hellenic", a process of Hellenization took place.

We haven't censored opposing scholarly views. We only resisted suggestive rephrasings of the article. You are still free to insert more references supporting your view. Your "racist" point, ffs, don't Godwin us. The Basques, for example, can claim "purer descent" in the sense of "less diverse",. Of course "Slavic genes" are just as "pure" as "Turkic genes", so "purity" is very misleading in this context. If you like, you can replace "purer" with "more boring". dab (ᛏ) 06:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*no, there are no "pure races" in an absolute sense. Historically, this is especially true for the Balkans, because a lot of people kept migrating/invading there.

And that statement becomes extremely more ironic when you know that it comes from a person whose nation has FOUR official languages... Miskin

I don't believe in race. It's an artificial notion invented to justify political motivation. The scientific use of 'race' in anthropology has absolutely nothing to do with the coutless unorthodox definition given by different people today (and misinterpreted by the crowd). If you're looking for direct ancestry, the only way to do it is by examining the cultural and linguistic continuity, not by counting wars and invasions. Miskin

Herodotus & Alexander the I

What exactly you don't agree with Decius? I've been patient in hopes that one of you would do something to improve the ludicrous statements such as "On the other hand, Herodotus records how the Macedonians were customarily excluded from panhellenic events such as the Olympic Games, entry to which was confined to Greeks. The Macedonian aristocracy, however, clearly saw itself as Greek and Macedonian kings were permitted to participate on that basis. This was evidently somewhat controversial: when Alexander I attempted to compete at Olympia, Herodotus relates:", but apparently none of you notices or cares about it. There's nothing 'controversian' about what Herodotus writes. It becomes controversian when you try to misinterpret his meaning. Herodotus gives an account on how Macedonians started participating in the games, he has already stated that he considers them Greek in every single respect. He's not saying first that they're Greek and then that they're barbarians as you're implying in this travesty of an article. Herodotus is NOT contradicting himself, if you want to refute him then cite Demosthenes or something, but do not try to misinterpret his meaning in a way that would suit your POV. I'm reverting to NPOV. Miskin

Miskin, I've read that quote in context, and it only refers to Alexander the I being allowed to participate---that's it. And Herodotus even describes why he was allowed. That's why I disagree with what you wrote, and why I reverted. Decius 14:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Decius, that Macedonians (everyone - not just Royals) participated in the Olympics and the pan-hellenic events prior to your imaginary Hellenisation is a fact, F-A-C-T, there are archaeological inscriptions with lists of athletes and literary sources that verify this. During the time of Alexander I (late 6th early 5th century BC), Macedon was not in close contact with the Greek city-states, not to mention that it was under Persian occupation. This is why it hadn't start participating in the events. Also during Alexander I's reign the foundation of both Olympics and of Macedon were relatively new. The participation rules for athletes to enter the Olympic Games were "A male free-born Greek of a Greek state". An ethnic Greek in Persia would not be able to participate under the name "Alexander X of Persia", so unless he was chosen as a representative of a Greek state, he wouldn't participate at all. As for the rest of the pan-hellenic leagues in which Macedon participated, the member were enrolled by state only, not by individuals. Herodotus emphasis on "Alexander proved himself to be a Hellen" doesn't have to do with the Macedonians' status as Hellenes, but with Alexander's individually. The emphasis on Alexander's origin is given in order to verify the authenticity of his speech in Athens while Macedon was under Persian rule. I reapeat: Herodotus does NOT contradict himself, it's you who's misintepreting what he says in order to match with your personal POV. Miskin

Three points: 1) provide a credible reference that archaeological inscriptions verify that non-Royal Macedonians participated in the Olympics in pre-Hellenistic times; 2) anyone who reads Herodotus, book Five, sections 20--22, will understand clearly what Herodotus intended, and I haven't seen a credible scholar (actually, I haven't seen any scholar period) who interprets that passage of Herodotus as you do; 3) Herodotus is not contradicting himself, because despite what you believe, he never clearly states that the Macedonians are Hellenes: what he states is that the early Dorians under the name of Macedni settled in the Pindus area before moving on into the Peloponnesos. Decius 17:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

1) I can randomly search for the lists on the internet but for obvious reasons it's not that easy to find the actual archaeological inscriptions. But if I somehow knew that it could change your POV, I'd find them. Something tells me that even if I do, you'll just ignore it, as you have done with all the points I pointed out earlier (and you said you'd look into). You will find victors that go back at least 450BC. That of course implies that the competitors were countless. 2) I don't think that any credible and unbiased scholar would actually address this passage. If you're referring to Borza again, then you should revalidate your sources. 3) because despite what you believe, he never clearly states that the Macedonians are Hellenes: what he states is that the early Dorians under the name of Macedni settled in the Pindus area before moving on into the Peloponnesos. Oh. So according to you, the Makednoi of Herodotus who are the ancestors of Makedon and live north of Mt Olympus, have absolutely nothing to do with the Makedones, ancestors of Makedon, who live also north of Mt Olympus. Get serious. Nobody doubts that Herodotus by 'Makednoi' is referring to 'Makedones', even FYROM propagandists admit that (and then they say he was not reliable). Actually "Makednoi" is a word Herodotus frequently uses for the Macedonians, so if it doesn't mean Macedonians, then Herodotus is not talking about Alexander I of Macedon, and is not referring to Macedonians at all. In fact the translation of the Perseus project uses "Macedonians" instead of "Makednoi": "it settled about Pindus in the territory called Macedonian; from there again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where it took the name of Dorian" http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126&query=chapter%3D%2356&layout=&loc=1.55.1 Istances of Herodotus using the term "Makednoi" for Macedonians: ek de tês Histiaiôtidos hôs exanestê hupo Kadmeiôn, oikee en Pindôi Makednon kaleomenon. So I hope we're clear with this; Makednoi = Macedonians, I'll change it in the article to avoid misunderstandings.

But now you claim that it's my POV that Herodotus considered Macedonians to be Greek? I feel obliged to refresh your memory on what he has said:

"At least these towns served as a pretext for the expedition, the real purpose of which was to subjugate as great a number as possible of the Greek cities; and this became plain when the Thasians, who did not even lift a hand in their defence, were reduced by the sea force, while the land army added the Macedonians to the former slaves of the king. All the tribes on the hither side of Macedonia had been reduced previously." (Book VI)

"It were indeed a monstrous thing if, after conquering and enslaving the Sacae, the Indians, the Ethiopians, the Assyrians, and many other mighty nations, not for any wrong that they had done us, but only to increase our empire, we should then allow the Greeks, who have done us such wanton injury, to escape our vengeance. What is it that we fear in them?- not surely their numbers?- not the greatness of their wealth? We know the manner of their battle- we know how weak their power is; already have we subdued their children who dwell in our country, the Ionians, Aeolians, and Dorians. I myself have had experience of these men when I marched against them by the orders of thy father; and though I went as far as Macedonia, and came but a little short of reaching Athens itself, yet not a soul ventured to come out against me to battle."

"But, notwithstanding that they have so foolish a manner of warfare, yet these Greeks, when I led my army against them to the very borders of Macedonia, did not so much as think of offering me battle. (SS 3.) Who then will dare, O king! to meet thee in arms, when thou comest with all Asia's warriors at thy back, and with all her ships? For my part I do not believe the Greek people will be so foolhardy." (Dialog between Persian generals - book VII)

"Now these were the nations who composed the Grecian fleet. From the Peloponnese, the following- the Lacedaemonians with six, teen ships; the Corinthians with the same number as at Artemisium; the Sicyonians with fifteen; the Epidaurians with ten; the Troezenians with five; and the Hermionians with three. These were Dorians and Macedonians all of them (except those from Hermione), and had emigrated last from Erineus, Pindus, and Dryopis. The Hermionians were Dryopians, of the race which Hercules and the Malians drove out of the land now called Doris. Such were the Peloponnesian nations."

"The whole nation of the Phocians had not joined the Medes; on the contrary, there were some who had gathered themselves into bands about Parnassus, and made expeditions from thence, whereby they distressed Mardonius and the Greeks who sided with him, and so did good service to the Grecian cause. Besides those mentioned above, Mardonius likewise arrayed against the Athenians the Macedonians and the tribes dwelling about Thessaly." [Book IX]

So what were you saying? That Herodotus never clearly states that Macedonians were Greeks? It was my imagination? What? Oh right, you were wrong... Miskin

I've read those quotes before, and I stand by my statement that Herodotus never clearly stated that the Macedonians were Hellenes. I wasn't questioning whether the term Makedni can be interchangeable with Macedonians. Herodotus was saying that, in the dim past, the Dorians settled in the Pindus area, an area that was known as Macedonia; from there, the Dorians moved on south....

As for the other quote, Herodotus, book 8, section 43, which indicates that those peoples mentioned were all "Dorians and Macedonians", that tells us nothing about the Macedonian language. Herodotus was implying that certain of those groups were of Macedonian origin. Okay, but remember that according to Herodotus (book I, section 57) the Athenians were of Pelasgian origin, and he suggests that the Athenians adopted the Greek tongue when they joined the Hellenic union. So, it may be that those tribes (who were "originally Macedonian") also adopted the Greek tongue. Nowhere does Herodotus state that the Macedonians are Hellenes. Decius 18:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

For the Athenians being a Pelasgic people, see also the section right before that, book I, section 56. Here Herodotus states that the Athenians and Ionians are a Pelasgic race, while the Dorians are a Hellenic race. Decius 19:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not the Grandmaster when it comes to reading ancient Greek, but notice this: "epi de Dôrou tou Hellênos tên hupo tên Ossa te kai ton Olumpon chorên, kaleomenên de Histiaiôtin: ek de tês Histiaiôtidos hôs exanestê hupo Kadmeiôn--oikee en Pindôi--Makednon kaleomenon"---it looks to me that in both instances, he is indicating what the region is called, not the people. So it should be translated as the Perseus version indeed translates it. The region of Pindus was known as Macedonia, not that the Dorians were here known as Macedonians. Decius 19:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It looks like that what looks like to you is wrong. What Herodotus actually says has nothing to do with the interpretation you just gave. Your personal (mis)interpretation of the various English translations is irrelevant to the truth. The Greek text is there and we don't have to decide according to what a translator might have thought. The quotation "oikee en Pindôi, Makednon kaleomenon" is literally translated as "(they) lived in Pindus, (and they) were called Macedonians". The subject of the sentence "Makednon kaleomenon" is "they", i.e. the Dorians. The Perseus translator is aware of this, but is giving a more free translation by adding the word "terrirory", which does NOT exist in the original text (of course the translator of Perseus wasn't thinking of vandals like you). The proof of what I say can be found easily in the translation of the MIT Classics page which reads "they settled, under the name of Macedni, in the chain of Pindus" (http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.1.i.html)". So are you convinced about what Herodotus meant in that phrase? Do you see that you were wrong, or do I need to make it more clear for you? I'm not being sarcastic, I just want to make sure that we communicate. So if you have nothing else to say on this, I'll assume that you realised that you were wrong and that you now fully acknowledge that Herodotus was talking about the Macedonians hailing from Dorians, nothing more - nothing less. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to you Herodotus considers Athenians and Ionians as a Hellenised people right? So if we take into account the Hellenisation theory of Macedon as a fact, wouldn't that imply that Macedon (just like Athens) became indistinguishable from the other Greeks? Since we do still consider Athenians as Hellenised people and therefore call them Greeks, then we are you not doing the same with Macedon? Maybe because you're just a biased person who does care about evidence or logic? Oh, I see.

As for the other quote, Herodotus, book 8, section 43, which indicates that those peoples mentioned were all "Dorians and Macedonians", that tells us nothing about the Macedonian language. Herodotus was implying that certain of those groups were of Macedonian origin.

This POV misinterpretation can almost be characterised as propaganda. I'm going to clean up this article in the most POV way, i.e. according to what Macedonians consider themselves (regarding Macedonian royals and scholars as representatives). I'm going to quickly prove you that Macedonians considered themselves Greeks, and therefore describe them in our article in that way. Since we can't be sure about linguistics, and since linguistics are independent of ethnicity, this is the best criterion we can think of. Categorising Macedonians into anything other than what they believed is an actual insult of the civilization we're supposedly trying to honour. Parenthesis: Before you make any mass-reverts, be sure to point out exactly what you disagreed with. Otherwise I'll revert again, and again, and again, until you give me a reason for every single thing you changed. Miskin

And we're supposed to take your word for it that that Herodotus sentence can only be read in one way (the way you prefer), when it has been translated at least once by a scholar in another way? Yeah right. This again will take more research and a survey of scholarly opinions, so: no, I'm not convinced of what Herodotus intended in that sentence, and I'm not the only one. Also, don't be such a hypocrite: who is the one here whose edits continuously display the methods of the vandal? Who is the one who is overloaded with propaganda? You excel in both these respects (vandal tactics & propaganda), while I have not engaged in vandalism or propaganda. In fact, you just erased half the article yesterday just because you didn't like it. "My" interpretation of Herodotus book 8, section 43, is more legit than the extra stuff you read into it. Decius 01:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I don't claim that that other Herodotus sentence (Makedni, etc.) can only be read in one way. I do state that it can be read in two ways, a statement backed up by at least one scholar's translation, if not more (which I'll look for). And in my opinion, which I'm not pushing on the article's translation, as you see, is that the subject of the sentence was the region. That's not impossible, or even improbable. Decius 02:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For my part, I find the assertion that it is not parallel to kaleomenên de Histiaiôtin in the preceeding clause somewhat implausible, and would appreciate a parallel or a grammarian as source, for Herodotus doing something so clumsy. Septentrionalis 17:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up

Removing connections of ethnic VS linguistic character of Macedon (as we have agreed that they are two separate things). The ethnic identity of Macedonians will be determined according to what they considered themselves. Let's examine it closely:

`Now you fear punishment and beg for your lives, so I will let you free, if not for any other reason so that you can see the difference between a Hellenic king and a barbarian tyrant, so do not expect to suffer any harm from me. A king does not kill messengers.' Pseudo-Kallisthenes 1.37.9-13 (quotes Alexander III).

Proof that Macedonians considered themselves Greeks:

From Alexander the Great’s letter to Darius:

'Your ancestors invaded Macedon [3] and the rest of Greece [4] and did us harm although we had not done you any previous injury. I have been appointed commander-in-chief of the Greeks and it is with the aim of punishing the Persians that I have crossed into Asia, since you are the aggressors.

[Arrian, Alexander’s Anabasis – 2.14]

"I do not separate people, as do the narrow-minded, into Greeks and barbarians. I am not interested in the origin or race of citizens. I only distinguish them on the basis of their virtue. For me each good foreigner is a Greek and each bad Greek is worse than a barbarian." Kallisthenes

"He [Alexander the Great] sent to Athens three hundred Persian panoplies to be set up to Athena in the acropolis; he ordered this inscription to be attached: Alexander son of Philip and the Hellenes, except the Lacedaemonians, set up these spoils from the barbarians dwelling in Asia"

[Arrian - 1,16,7]

"The Aitolians, the Akarnanians, the Macedonians, men of the same language, are united or disunited by trivial causes that arise from time to time; with aliens, with barbarians, all Greeks wage and will wage eternal war; for they are enemies by the will of nature, which is eternal, and not from reasons that change from day to day."

[The foundation of the city, par. 31]

Proof that Macedonians were part of the Pan-Hellenics and therefore the Olympics prior to Philip II:

"For at a congress of the Lacedaemonian allies and the other Greeks, in which Amyntas, the father of Philip, being entitled to a seat, was represented by a delegate whose vote was absolutely under his control, he joined the other Greeks in voting to help Athens to recover possession of Amphipolis. As proof of this I presented from the public records the resolution of the Greek congress and the names of those who voted".

Aeschines [On the Embassy 2.32]

"They say that these were the tribes collected by Amphiktyon himself in the Hellenic Assembly: [...] the Macedonians joined and the entire Phocian race [...] In my day there were thirty members: six from each of Nikopolis, Macedonia and Thessaly [...] "

Pausanias [Phokis – 8,2]

Mass reverts will be "re-reverted". Partial reverts will be accepted only after discussion. I've had enough of this travesty. Miskin

Mass reverts, like the one you did yesterday and constantly do? Yes, they will be reverted. Your edits will be scrutinized as usual, and the policy has not changed. Decius 01:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The falshification of Hishtory

We now are in front of an other astonishing breakthrough by dab. According to his undisputed theories,(the rest of us are to little for him to question what he claims,since he called us trolls before) macedonians don't belong to greek culture!!!!!!!!!.So, his majesty Mr Dab scorns Droysen,Hammond,etc,etc.Tell me, should we rename Hellenistic period into something else then?Odysseas 18:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

man, you should really work on your sarcasm if you want to make me either smile or frown. dab (ᛏ) 08:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can now reveal that one of dab's ancestors stole the patents underlying the Antikythera mechanism and used them surrepticiously to establish the Swiss watch industry! What do you answer to this, Mr. Emmenthaler??? :PP Seriously now, Odysseas, dab is a reasonable person, not to mention he is a knowledgeable linguist. I have a cunning plan to "convert" him to Panhellenism, but it entails Miskin, you and me inviting him to Rhodes, or Paros, or Mykonos, or Ios, this summer, getting him drunk, or stoned, or both, hiring a few strippers and photographing him (or, even better, catching him on video) in compromising situations which will result in his family disowning him and his boss firing him. Then he will be our instrument! Are you game? (Decius is out of the question because he is the grinch that stole Christmas!) Chronographos 10:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you Greeks are drunk enough already, judging from this section's title. In fact, I have been drunk in Greece before. And indulging in panhellenism on Athos. (but not drunk on Athos, to the best of my recollection:), but I'm certainly willing to repeat the experience on various eternally hellenic islands. Just no Ouzo, please. If you want to bribe me with alcohol and loose women, know that your Bulgarian competition is severe, however. dab (ᛏ) 13:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hehehehehehe, it's a good thing you didn't get drunk on Athos or some of them smelly monks would have taken advantage of you! Bulgarian women are no competition for the simple reason that the best-looking ones work in Greece ;) Chronographos 15:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) (PS: Pace, Bulgarian friends, this is meant as a joke!)

As for the ouzo, you have to try it at Naousa, Paros, with roasted octopus. Then you tell me! Chronographos 15:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Get ready for Propaganda

I officially will no longer watch this page, at least for a few months. If Greeks really feel so strong about this, and want to neglect the fact this is a Free Encyclopedia, then they can have this article: Macedon. This is not a political issue for me, and I no longer care. Real history books will tell you what the majority of scholars believe about ancient Macedon, not some internet kook site. Go to the library. I got better things to do. I do not in any way support the propaganda emanating from Macedonian Slav nationalists or Greek nationalists. There are thousands of people on Wikipedia who can revert the nationalist edits. This is not Decius & Dab vs Miskin, this is a Free Wikipedia versus a Fraudulent Wikipedia.Decius 02:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm back, after a few weeks. This page needs to be watched. Decius 17:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Added 3rd paragraph, Expansion section

Deals with survival of archaic political and financial institutions long after they had been abolished by the rest of the Greek world Chronographos 01:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrary editing by "62.162.14.59"

Perpetrator: 15:51, 25 Jun 2005 62.162.14.59 Chronographos 15:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

> PERSIANS NAMING OF THE GREEKS & THE VARIOUS GREEKS TRIBES

There are several types of Yauna in the Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions:

(1) Yaunβ in general: the same as the Greeks known as "Ionians", i.e., those living in Asia Minor. They can already be found in the Behistun Inscription, when the Persian rule had not yet reached Europe. This identification is 100% certain.

(2) Yaunβ takabarβ, the 'Greeks with shield-shaped hats'. First mentioned in DNa ( http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/DNa.html ), where they are distinguished from the "normal" Yaunβ: an almost certain reference to the Macedonian sunhats.

(3 and 4) "The Yaunβ, near and across the sea": another division, for the first time found in DSe ( http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/DSe.html ) and in a slightly different form in the Daiva Inscription by Xerxes (XPh: http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/XPh.html ). The obvious reading is "the Asian Yauna and the European Yauna", i.e., -again- Asian Greeks and Macedonians.

On the other hand, Persian inscriptions are fairly stereotypical, and the fact that there is a small difference between the precise wording of DSe and XPh suggests that there is a difference. Perhaps, there is a difference between the "Yauna across the sea" and the sunhat-Yaunβ. If this is correct, the Yauna across the sea must be either Cypriot Greeks (but why didn't Darius, who seems to have subdued Cyprus, mention them?) or the Thessalians, Boeotians, and Athenians - nations that Xerxes could claim to have conquered.

(5) There is a seal from the age of Xerxes ( http://www.livius.org/a/1/greece/yauna_seal.jpg ) in which the great king defeats someone looking like a Yauna. It is unique, because a second man appears to have a hand in the killing, and this man looks like a Yauna. Is this the Macedonian king Alexander who helps killing a Thessalian/Boeotian/Athenian??

Such instances are extremely rare since only a handful of original Persian texts have survived.There are of references by Darius I in the Behistun Inscription to Sardis (OP Sparda), Ionia (OP Yauna) and Cappadocia (OP Katpatuka). There are also a couple of statements concerning the Greeks and their tribes in the Babylonian tablets.

well, this could contain material for the Hellenes article. especially the seal. it seems foreign tribes in Antiquity were widely recognized by their dress, so a section on dress should not be lacking in articles on any ancient ethnicity. dab (ᛏ) 18:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

the calendar

the information should maybe collected in a main article Dorian calendar? What are the primary sources? dab (ᛏ) 18:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

And, doesn't that look like the Hebrew calendar ? 7 months added every 19 years. The idea of the synchronicity fits Josephus, who equates the days/months in various places. A good research project. Shalom, Steven Avery schmuel@nyc.rr.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic Praxeus 09:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

PROVE THAT U ARE NOT A VANDAL

"Decius (Talk) (Miskin, Odysseas, the ancient Macedon articles must not be contradictory, so I removed your POV. Manos is using your spurious text as "evidence".) "
I never said that.
I said that the 2 articles are saying 2 opposite things.

Now about the evidence:

Hesiod said they were Greeks (Aeolian).
Hellanicus said they were Greeks (Aeolian).
Macedons said they were Greeks
The rest Greeks said they were Greeks
They were participating in Olympic Games
They were members of the Council of Delphi
Persians said they were Greeks
Not a single evidence proving the opposite

These are facts. Could u plz post here ur evidence proving that Macedons might not be Greeks?
Thanks.

PS: If u can not prove it, it means that u post POV material.
PS2: If u rv the article too many times, I'll report u as vandal. ;)
MANOS

Do u want to change this article? Do u believe that this article is full of lies?? Then plz tell us why Macedons might not be Greek.
We already know that:

Hesiod said they were Greeks (Aeolian). That means they were Greeks and they spoke a Greek Dialect.
Hellanicus said they were Greeks (Aeolian). That means they were Greeks and they spoke an Greek Dialect.
Macedons said they were Greeks and they spoke Greek.
The rest Greeks said they were Greeks. That means they were Greeks and they spoke Greek.
They were participating in Olympic Games. That means they were Greeks and they spoke Greek.
They were members of the Council of Delphi. That means they were Greeks and they spoke Greek.
Persians said they were Greeks. That means they were Greeks and they spoke Greek.
Not a single evidence proving the opposite. That means that all the above are correct.

So why Macedons might not be Greeks?
Plz tell us.
MANOS

manos, you have just violated WP:3RR, and if somebody bothers to report you, you will be blocked. Also, you have posted your famous seven points about ten times today. Once is enough, we can read. You have taken your seven points from the article, none of them isn't duly mentioned, so I really don't see what you want. Not that I care. You will just stop your bratty behaviour, or you will be blocked again and again. dab (ᛏ) 19:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

These if facts. I didn't see ur facts. I wonder why?
MANOS

Many of your "facts" in your exquisite list are over-generalized or erroneous. I'll point out the problems later. Decius 19:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

When I changed the article of the Ancient Macedonian language, u told me that I was violating the rules. Now u are changing an article that their main point (that Macedons were Greek) is unchangeable for more than 1 month. So I guess that u are violating the rules. Not me. So stop changing or else I'll report u as a vandal. If u want to change it, prove u are right.
MANOS

check the history. there was no consensus. Miskin just got away with sneaking in an extra "Greek" I suppose. dab (ᛏ) 19:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I know that u are changing without facts an article. So if u prove that u are right, I'll let u change it. But if u can not prove it, then I'll change the Ancient Macedonian language.
I think that is fair enough. ;)
MANOS

I had finally "allowed" User:Miskin and User:Odysseas to have their Point Of View version in the text, after previously trying to explain to them that such POV will not be allowed with a subject where the specialists are still debating. I and Dbachmann were reverting their POV text for months, till I decided to "let it slide by". It didn't seriously bother till Manos came along and tried to use it as "evidence" against the Ancient Macedonian language article. Decius 19:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

u can change anything you want. only, unless u pick a topic u have some clue about, ur edits will be rolled back within the minute. u are just wasting pplz time. dab (ᛏ) 19:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't use them as evidence. How many times I have to say this?
But these I post above are facts. If u have evidence proving the opposite, plz post them here.
MANOS

Manos, I am not about to waste time on the same topics over & over. If you want criticisms, why don't you read the articles themselves for now. Or go to a library or a bookstore, if you can bring yourself to open a book. Decius 19:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The typical answer by someone, who can't support his stupid theories. Come one Decius. U told us that u have plenty of ancient evidence. Why don't u post 1 over here?
MANOS

Why do I need to? I am not inserting any "Original research" in the text, so I am not bound to cite any evidence in support of other people's theories (including Julius Pokorny, but you wouldn't know of him; Pokorny and his stupid theories!). What concerns us here today are references. If you want evidence and counter-arguments, either read the articles and talk pages, or wait. Decius 20:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Just because a ***** like User:Sango123 supported your behavior (and he did support your behavior, though he now repudiates this) don't get the impression that you are engaging in proper Wiki behavior here.

Decius 20:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I prefer to wait for u to find the ancient evidence and post them here
Don't spend time here. Find the ancient evidence. Quick. :-P
MANOS

I wrote a compromise sentence into the article attempting to take both sides into account (some ancient sources say they're Greek, however, modern scholars ain't sure). — Rickyrab | Talk 20:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Who are u going to believe? Ancient evidence or MODERN scholars? :-P
MANOS

How would I know? This wasn't MY fight. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Just stay tuned and u will find out.
MANOS

Thanks Rickyrab, but the former compromise was unceremoniously removed by User:Odysseas at 18:28 11 June 2005. I've restored a similar compromise, and might restore Dbachmann's exact phrasing in a moment. Decius 20:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Where are the evidence? Don't change the article now. Just post an ancient evidence over here. ;)
MANOS

If you mean "evidence that proves without a doubt that the ancient Macedonians did not speak a Greek dialect"---I don't know of any such conclusive evidence. Can you prove that the theory of evolution is correct without a doubt? Should I vandalize that article and ask for "real evidence" on its Talk Page? Decius 20:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

If you mean "evidence that proves without a doubt that the ancient Macedonians did not speak a Greek dialect"---I don't know of any such conclusive evidence. Can you prove that the theory of evolution is correct without a doubt? Decius 20:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Decius, do u read my posts? Or u just pretend that u read them. I want evidence proving that I'm wrong and u are right.
That means evidence proving that Macedons MIGHT not be Greeks.
That's all.
Just 1 evidence. ;)
MANOS

Evidence that the ancient Macedonians might not have been Greeks is already discussed in Ancient Macedonian language and Macedon. Find it. Decius 20:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Then it will be really easy for u to just copy paste an ancient source, don't u think?
MANOS

Then it will be real easy for you to just read the articles, don't you think? Decius 20:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC) (and by the way, I'm not saying you're wrong that Macedonian was a Greek dialect, I'm saying removing a discussion of the scholarly debate from the articles is vandalism)

U have an easy job, if there are plenty of evidence proving that Macedons might not be Greeks.
U just need 1 evidence. If u find it, u prove it. It's so simple.
On the other hand, I have to explain ALL the ancient sources in order to prove my thesis and to be sure that u aren't going to complain that there are evidence supporting the opposite.
Obviously I can't do that.

U just have to show us 1 single evidence. With 1 evidence u can claim that Macedons might not be Greek.
So u should give us.. let say 5 evidence supporting that. Obviously u can't post all the ancient sources and claiming there are evidence here supporting the opposite :-P.
But why I don't just pick 5 sources that u had already posted and u claimed that these are evidence supporting that Macedons weren't Greeks?
Because if I do and I prove that u are wrong, u can claim that the thesis I support, can't be explained with the rest evidence of urs.
And because I don't want to waste my time... plz just post 5 evidence. Any ancient evidence u want. Or even 10 if u want. Not more, because then it would be really hard to explain them all within this day (10 is a big number, too :-P).
That's the reason that I don't choose evidence that u had already posted.

I believe that is fair for all of us.
If someone here, really believes that Macedons might not be Greek, plz just post 1-10 evidence proving that.
MANOS

"I'm saying removing a discussion of the scholarly debate from the articles is vandalism" So I guess that not adding scholarly opinions is vandalism, too.
Then u should add the scholars opinions that Macedons were Illyrians, Slavs, Thracians and Chinese!!!
Why don't u add these scholarly opinions?
Vandalism. ;)
MANOS

Evidence presented in the articles as indicating the Macedonians might not have been Greeks, I consider reasonable, though not conclusive evidence. But it's not about "what I consider", it's about a Free Encyclopedia presenting valid scholarly research from actual scholars, not from pseudo-scholars who say "the Macedonians were Slavs or Albanians". Decius 21:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Guys, I think that is obvious that u can not support it.
If u could u would already done it.
U claim that u are running out of patience with me
U claim that u had already post these "evidence"

Question of a logical person: Then why don't u just post 1 evidence in order to get rid of me?
It's so simple. 1 evidence and u prove ur theory. Just 1. Not 2... just 1.

Why instead of copy pasting that evidence u prefer to telling me that I have to shut up and that I'm wrong?
It's so easy. U just have to copy and then paste. Is it hard? 1 single evidence.
But why I don't just post my evidence in order to support my thesis?
Because I have to explain any single ancient evident in order to be sure that u wont claim that there are evidence supporting the opposite. That is impossible.
But what do u have to do in order to support ur thesis? 1 single evidence. 1 line. 1 paragraph. 1 single evidence. It's so simple.
With 1 single evidence u support ur theory. That;s it. ;)

Question of a logical person: Why they don't post that damn evidence?
Answer... ur turn guys... what is the answer?
MANOS

Because "1 evidence" on its own proves nothing. I would have to summarize the arguments presented in Macedon and Ancient Macedonian language, which I will not do. Read the articles. Decius 21:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"it's about a Free Encyclopedia presenting valid scholarly research from actual scholars, not from pseudo-scholars who say "the Macedonians were Slavs or Albanians"."
Why the rest are pseudo-scholars and urs aren't?
If u are so sure about them, plz just open their books and read the ancient evidence that they present in order to support their theories.
Then u just post that ancient evidence here.
It's not a big deal.
If u don't do that, then I believe that every "neutral" user over here, will believe that ur scholars are pseudo-scholars as well.
MANOS

Articles that present only one view current among the specialists (not pseudo-scholars) in question, while omitting others, are against Wiki policy (and also a waste of text, since the debate is reasonable, quite interesting, and the public should have a one-stop source to read about it on the net). Decius 21:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"Because "1 evidence" on its own proves nothing."
U don't get it.
The theory I support claims that Macedons were 100% Greeks. That means that ALL evidence have to support that.

On the other hand ur theory says that they might not be Greek. That means that u just need 1 evidence that is against the Greekness of Macedons. Then u will prove that "ur" theory is correct and "mine" isn't.
MANOS

There is no "1 evidence" (that is known so far) that can prove the Macedonians were Greeks or not Greeks. If you don't realize that, then maybe you should think about finishing High School before going to Plato's Academy. Decius 21:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"Articles that present only one view current among the specialists (not pseudo-scholars) in question"
I say that ur scholars are pseudo-scholars, too.
So in order to prove that I'm wrong, u have to post at least 1 evidence that is against the Greekness of Macedons.
If u are not in position to do that, then ur scholars are definitely wrong.
MANOS

Kid, I've already discussed why I will not present "1 evidence" for or against. Now, excuse me but I must resume this another day. Decius 21:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"There is no "1 evidence" (that is known so far) that can prove the Macedonians were Greeks or not Greeks. If you don't realize that, then maybe you should think about finishing High School before going to Plato's Academy. Decius 21:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC) "

Damn. U don't read my posts. Definitely u don't read my posts.
I said that in order to prove that Macedons are Greeks, I have to prove that all ancient evidence are supporting the Greekness of Macedons (of course it's obvious that the most of them wont even referring to that subject ;)). That means more than 1 evidence.
On the other hand in order to prove that Macedons MIGHT not be Greeks (not that they aren't Greek. But MIGHT), u have to find at least 1 evidence that is against the Greekness of Macedons.
If u can not find it, u can not claim that ur scholars aren't pseudo-scholars. ;)
MANOS

Can u understand it?
1. All evidence supporting that Macedons are Greeks = Macedons are 100% Greeks
2. A few evidence supporting that Macedons aren't Greeks (even 1) = Macedons might not be Greeks
MANOS

I think that Admins should involved in this.
I dispute the articles related to Macedons and I just ask for 1 single evidence that can support the current articles.
I believe that we should change all the articles related to Macedons, if these ppl are unable to support their post on the articles.
MANOS

Manos, we will start reading you posts once you

• cite literature (all statements in the article are from the sources cited)
• start acting like a grown-up. right now you are just crap-flooding talkpages

then it would also be nice if you started using proper English instead of juvenile slang, and while we're at it, have you noted that you can sign your posts wit four tildes? Ah, no, of course you haven't. Since you refuse to read either Wikipedia articles or Wikipedia guidelines. We are not your teachers, paid to spoonfeed you with what knowledge you are condescending to absorb. Learn to read. dab (ᛏ) 06:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Whatever happened to MANOS and his 48 hour ultimatum that he posted on Talk:Ancient Macedonian language? He had us worried for a moment :-) Alexander 007 13:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)