This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Nearly the entire section focuses on some minor point by Herodotus (regarding the legitimacy of whether Macedonians should be allowed to compete in the ancient Olympics) while ignoring the fact they competed as SELF-IDENTIFYING Greeks in those Olympics for centuries. The way it's currently written (undue emphasis) it's as if Ancient Macedonians weren't seen as Greeks when it should be saying the opposite if anything. Ancient Greeks (at least at the Olympics) considered ancient Macedonians Greek enough to compete.
Personally I think modern political views are tampering with ancient Macedonian articles(see name dispute). If self-identification is what matters most though, we should be rationally consistent and apply those same rules to ancient Macedonians as well.
"Men of Athens, In truth I would not tell it to you if I did not care so much for all Hellas (Greece); I myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery." (Speech of Alexander I of Macedonia when he was admitted to the Olympic games, Herodotus, " Histories", 9.45, ed. A. D. Godley) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.134.31 (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
e.g
Recent edits in the opening paragraph made it look totally definite about the much debated issue of the origin of the ancient Macedonians. They are described as a nation, meaning a distinct ethnic group conclusively separate from the Greek nation, which was hellenized at some time, meaning that they were definitely not Greeks. The previous version reflected more accurately the present scholarship. While Dbachmann's edits in the Ancient Macedonian language look more moderate and neutral, his edits in this article leave no space for doubt that they could have been of Greek origin as well. Was this the point of these edits? Who knows.. - Sthenel (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The section on archaeological evidence also leads to premature conclusions. A few scraps of pottery and greek inscriptions barely enables us to make such blanket conclusions that society in upper Macedonia spoke Greek in the 13th century. Mycenaen pottery was also found as far as the Carpathian basin. Were the Otomanni's also Greek ? So either the editors are putting their own spin on the evidence at hand, or the sources provided - Encyclopedia Britannica and a Greek internet site - are of themselves overgeneralizing. in fact, the Grek female author of the article in question is clearly biased. She has reconstructed an entire history based on pottery finds. "Undoubtedly", she claims, the people responsible for introducing such pottery to Macedonia in the 13th century were the historical macedonians. She must have no archaeological training, otherwise she would realise that there were no Macedonians in the 13th century BC. On what basis does she conclude such an anachronistic statement (b) she must be incapable of explaining the movement of goods by other mechanisms other than migration - ie trade, cultural diffusion, mimicry, etc. Nor does it appear she has the otherwise well documented knowledge that, if we are going to make cultural analogies of the findings in Macedonia, that the artefacts found throught the Bronze and Iron Ages have predominantly a Thracian and / or Illyrian (Glasinac) provenance. The 'Hellenic' world barely extended north of Thessaly as of the mid 1st millenoum BC. Such premature and narrowly focused conclusions seriously undermine the validity and reliability of such an article, if it is even an article ? I don't think "Ageo-Balkan history" is even a propper journal (!)
Moreoever, again blanket statements like, by the 4th century macedonia was fully hellenized. how do we know ? ? A region which, today, despite the population exchanges, standardization of languge, propaganda, etc, which are associated with modern governmental systems, is still ethno-linguistically heterogeneous, would have been even more mixed 3, 000 years ago. it should clearly be stated that the Macedonian military and administrative system fully adapted the koine. We have no evidence about what every other common man, so it would be OR to place such blanket statements.
Hxseek (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hxseek, first of all we do not really care what the people in the broader region spoke in the 13th century BC, because the Macedonians as a tribe/nation/state etc started being present/known/acknowledged etc sometime between the 10th and the 8th century. Secondly, the evidence that we have from 5th and 4th century Macedonians (not Paeonians, Bryges, Illyrians, Chalkidikans etc) is that they were fully hellenized. 99% of the epigraphical evidence is from commoners (and we are talking THOUSANDS of items) and NOT from aristocratic/military/religious sources. Stop trying to connect the Macedonians with all other people that ever lived in the Balcans 5 centuries before or 10 centuries after the Macedonian kingdom. Like it or not, this is what ALL historians agree on. The question for some is not whether they were hellenized by the 5th or 4th century but whether they belonged to the Greek world BEFORE that. GK (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hxseek (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The text reads :
"In 19th century scholarship, some scholars argued that the Macedonians possibly had an Illyrian or Thracian rather than a Greek origin. Professor William Mitchell Ramsay considered the Macedonians as a tribe of Thrace, the land north-east of Greece, akin to the Thracians. George Rawlinson, stated that the Macedonians were a mixed race, not Paionians, Illyrians or Thracians, but of the three, closest with the Illyrians. Various "mixed" scenarios (e.g. Greco-Illyrian) have also been proposed.[15][16]
Following the archaeological discoveries of the 20th century, numerous modern scholars now advocate that the ancient Macedonians were of Greek origin which to this day remains the most common consensus.[17] Systematic excavations at Aiani since 1983 have brought to light finds that attest the existence of an organised city from the 2nd millennium BC to 100 BC. The excavations have unearthed the oldest pieces of black-and-white pottery, characteristic of the tribes of northwest Greece, discovered so far.[18][19] Found with Μycenaean sherds, they can be dated with certainty to the 14th century BC.[18][19] The findings also include some of the oldest samples of writing in Macedonia, among them inscriptions bearing Greek names like Θέμιδα (Themida). The inscriptions demonstrate that the society of Upper Macedonia spoke and wrote Greek before the 5th century BC.[18] Other scholars, such as Nicholas Hammond, argue that the language of the ancient Macedonians was a pure but specific form of Greek until 4th century BC when it was eventually amalgamated with common Greek.[20]"
If I read well, alternative theories are presented. Secondly, the presence of Greek elements in the region is discussed, which is logical, since the region where Macedon would be formed had Greek elements before the Macedonians, a fact many proponents of the alternative theories tend to conveniently ignore. The inscriptions discussed are not from the 13th century BC but much later, produced within Macedon. I give you that the sentence can be read as if these texts are from the second millennium. They are not. GK (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the entire article could flow better and be set out more academically. Rather than placing virtually the entire emphasis on historical accounts (incl participation in Hellenic events), all the linguistic, literary and archaeological evidence should be synthesized into an "ethnogenesis" section; as it is done in journals and books which deal with ancient peoples (an approach adopted in some of the better quality articles here on Wiki) Hxseek (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
About the wording [1] ("Though their linguistic and ethnic affiliation, whether Greek or otherwise, is not definitively known, it is accepted that by the late 4th century BC they had fully adopted the Koine Greek and integrated into the Greek world") – I'm in fact not quite happy with this, because the "though" implies there is some logical relation between these two statements – as if a possible lack of Greek affiliation before the 4th cent. was somehow "balanced out" by the fact of their later assimilation. There is no such link between these statements. They are entirely independent of each other and belong to quite different levels. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello to all,
I was fortunate enough to visit the ancient macedonian royal tombs at vergina this summer, and I just can' t seem to reconciliate what I have seen there with what is being discussed in all ancient macedonia related articles in wikipedia (or elsewhere!).
Other than the royal tombs, numerous funerary steles where found (according to the archeologists who discovered all that, ancient macedonians considered it an honour to be buried next their kings which explains these numerous funerary steles). On these steles, one can read the names of the dead, and all names are greek. Moreover, some steles had a little "texto" if I may call it so, also in greek.. Also, I have read a couple of books on ancient macedonia ( in french and english), where they are listed as dorian greeks..
It is in fact something that I have never been able to understand, why so much doubt on the fact they were a greek tribe, since even before their supposed hellenisation, they bore greek names?
I have read numerous explanation none of them valid:
1) they were in antagonism with the southern greek city states ( yes but so were all greek city states beetween them)
2) they had a different political structure, namely a kingdom-state (yes, but so did other city states, some where democracies, other had kings, other had tyrants, and even a same city state would at different chronologies change it s political system from oligarchy to democracy..)
3) they were seen as barbarians by some southern greeks (yes, but so were the epirotes, the aeolians of lemnos, or even the spartans, to some athenians.
4) they did not have philisophers, great sculptors or poets caracteristic of ancient classical greece (yes, but neither did sparta ever produce such things)
Anyway, can someone explain to me what is the real reason why ancient macedonians cannot be understood as an ancient greek tribe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.165.193.73 (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the problem with wanting to simply say that they were Greek, or were not "Greek" prior to 5th cenutry, because it attempts to pidgeon hole many facets of their origins, language, culture, social relations, into a a false dichotomy.
However, what ultimately matters is how they saw themselves and how other saw them. Clearly, they aspired a Hellenic identity. However, does this mean "Greek" in the modern day sense of the word? one could argue NO. In the same way that many people of diverse origins were later considered "ROman", ie part of the civilied world and the cultural codes it upheld, as opposed to 'barbarians' Hxseek (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This question has nothing to do with the article. No matter what arguments you may find, there are scholars, albeit a minority, who suggest that the Macedonians were a distinct ethnos from the rest of the Hellenes up to the 5th or early 4th century. Most agree that they did belong to what is known as the Greek community of tribes. Both of these opinions are presented. You have to understand that even the proponents of the Macedonian's Greekness, as am I, do not dispute the existence of these theories, advocated by well-known scholars and not nationalist charlatans, but try to find the correct wording to present both theories in a way proportionate to the degree of academic consensus. GK (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, these theories are stated. However, i do not see exaclty why a discussion of what it meant to be a "Hellene" has nothing to do with this article. Is it not our duty, as perhaps more informed editors, to clarify this, so that others more inclined to nationalist-derived arguements better understand the the mattters at hand, thus obviate their need to interject unneccesarily Hxseek (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not. This is what we have to do in the appropriate article and not here. You know I disagree with your views and I would not like to have to again enter a discussion about issues that have nothing to do with this article. If someone wants to find out what a Hellene is or was, he can look it up or strike a discussion in the appropriate articles with acknowledged scientific arguments and bibliography. If someone wants to make a point because he truly thinks so, because he has heard so and because his parents told him, he is a troll and we shouldn't feed him. GK (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's your opinion. It is not out of place to clarify definitions and contextualize meaning. Hxseek (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
First, I have to say that I am completely against these peculiar efforts to show the affiliation of the Ancient Macedonians with the Greek ethnos in general as they were developing through the past month. Let's see what I wrote, what FP's corrections and comments are and whether we can work along these lines to produce an exact and coherent text :
I wrote :
"It is generally accepted that the Ancient Macedonians consisted a Greek ethnos throughout their history, a fact disputed by certain scholars, who propose that they had formed a distinct nation before they were linguistically and culturally fully integrated into the Greek world by the 5th or 4th century BC."
FP commented :
"if "some" (notable) scholars "dispute" this, it's not "generally accepted", and not a "fact"."
and wrote :
"While many authors regard the Ancient Macedonians as a Greek ethnos throughout their history, some scholars propose that they had formed a distinct nation before they were linguistically and culturally fully integrated into the Greek world by the 5th or 4th century BC."
First we have to present the theory that prevails nowadays and we all know that this theory is supported by the overwhelming majority of scholars in universities and museums, as well as "authors". To this purpose I said "It is generally accepted", which clearly means that "most by far (scholars, authors etc) believe" I maintain that if "some scholars dispute this" then this is the expression we should use. If they didn't we would simply write "It is accepted", without the "generally". Also, a "fact" can be something that is not a universal truth. If I dispute a fact, then this does not make it less of a fat even if I am right. So, I suggest that my wording was clear and describes the situation well and with due weight on every aspect, it is non aggressive and to the point.
FP's corrections, to my mind, have weaknesses. Both words in "Many authors" can be misleading. "Many" we use to denote a number and not a proportion, so "Many" could be 6-10 scholars out of 100.000. Also, "authors" is too general and bears no academic value. What do we care what authors have to say? It is the words of scholars we are to use. The use of the word "fact" I will not insist upon. It is to me of low importance and only brought it in to make a contrast by using the word "dispute", which FP does not use. No problem with that. So, how about :
"It is generally accepted that the Ancient Macedonians consisted a Greek ethnos throughout their history, although some scholars propose that they had formed a distinct nation before they were linguistically and culturally fully integrated into the Greek world by the 5th or 4th century BC." ?
GK (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Your proposal is :
Many authors assume that the Ancient Macedonians were a Greek ethnos throughout their history, although some scholars propose that they had formed a distinct nation before they were linguistically and culturally fully integrated into the Greek world by the 5th or 4th century BC.
The word "assume" means "to accept without verification or proof" which is clearly degrading and wrong. So, since you do not dispute the fact that it is the majority of scholars who agree with opinion A, I would propose :
"Most scholars propose that the Ancient Macedonians were a Greek ethnos throughout their history, although some have suggested that they had formed a distinct nation before they were linguistically and culturally fully integrated into the Greek world by the 5th or 4th century BC." GK (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable sentence, although I maintain we should use Hellenistic given it's more appropriate for the period in question Hxseek (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
We cannot use "hellenistic" in this sentence. Hellenistic is a term coined to describe the culture developed and the era after Alexander III while here we are talking about the period between the 8th or 7th century and 5th or 4th BC.. I think that it presents both sides properly and respectfully. I have no problem with "concur" of course. GK (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
|The slight problem I have identified, however, is that these "most scholars" which connect the Macedonians as being Greek simply mention this as a sweeping categorization. Ie many of the sources noted in footnote 16 simple state something like 'the Macedonians were a Greek tribe". It is only those which actually go into the issue on a deeper level which highlight that the issue is not so straightforward. Obviously Hammond, but also Mallory, amongst others. So if we look at the provided references accurately, the converse might be true. Most scholars who have actually studied their origins, rather than mentioned a Greek-Macedonian link passingly (as part of a general history of macedonia or Alexander, etc), actually express reservations rather than confidence about the nature of Macedonian civilization prior to the 5th century BC. Hxseek (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
No. That is not what I'm doubting. The way it was worded - ie throughout their history - is , with no offence, slightly weasal. Because the sources which are later presented in support of such a statement actually do not go into such discussion. Any book that does objectively states that we do not really know much about 7th century Mcaedonians.
The problem will never be solved if we do not rapidly upgrade our way of thinking and continue attempting to sheepishly apply macroethonyms such as "Greek", "Thracian", "Celtic", etc, etc; labels which do not do justice to the reality of language shift, indentity adoption, fluidity of ethnicity, etc which has always occurred amongst human beings. That you, GK, personally do not "believe" in this is, I'm afraid, a shame, coz you appear to otherwise be an educated guy. Not to altogether dismiss 'traditional' theories, but traditionalism is about 4 decades out of date, and has obviously failed miserably at explaining the full picture of how peoples came to be. This does not change the fact that Alexander spoke GReek and saw himself as a Greek, so you needn't worry about blatant revisionism Hxseek (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not referring to the second millenium, but as late as the 6th century BC ! Ofcourse some classification is required, don't get me wrong, otherwise it gets too 'airy-fairy', but then if we are going to classify we still need to take all components in in due consideration. My intention is not to turn this into an article on thoeretical frameworks of ethnology, but i think an explanatory sentence here or there is not inappropriate Hxseek (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Future could you please re-state your objections and proposals along with any supporting sources? We need to have excerpts in-context from the relevant sources to decide how to proceed. But most of all we need to be clear on what precisely the disagreement is about.--Anothroskon (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly what I have been trying to say, F.P. ! If we look at their language, customs, organization, way of life, and the way they were seen etc, we would see features of both Hellenes and barbaroi. That is why we cannot say either A or B, and that is why ancient sources themselves were sometimes at odds as to the Greekness of the Macedonians (- something which appears to be continuously and intentionally neglected or removed from the 'ancient sources' section on this article - ie Thuclydies and Demosthenes)
I am working on a draft intro ethnology section. I will submit it on T.P. soon, I hope 152.76.1.243 Hxseek (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Everyone says A, B or maybe A or maybe B. Saying "none of the above" is not an option. There is no nationalistic approach on the subject, just opinions and theories. The Spartans had many "barbaric" customs and of course were called "barbarians" more often than the Macedonians, as were the Athenians. This has nothing to do with what we have to write. All this hiding behind our finger is really strange. If you people agree with what I have proposed then what the heck is the purpose of raising nationalistic arguments any more? So, FP, if you do not object to the wording of the lead, can we just go on with reshaping this article? I still have seen no one except Hxseek commenting on what I have proposed about deleting the whole article and start adding real information. Please, STOP trying to again transform all this into a sharade of endless arguments. The fact that I do not yet answer to the scholarly provocations is because I want to move on and stop arguing about things which are mainly irrelative to the article. As to an objective property of "Greekness" it is not what is or should be discussed and FP, you know that this comment is out of context here as was your selective attack on me. I surely do not trust your scholarly self reached opinions and you do not trust mine, so CAN WE PLEASE MOVE ON? Do we have a sentence that pretty much summarizes the situation so that we do not have to again deal with this issue? GK (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
GK, I am willing to work with you, however, you need to open your mind, so we can put this 'ethnicity' business to rest. However, in order for us to move on, you have to become familiar yourself with modern anthropological theories. Read Barthsl works on ethnicity, Renfrew's critique on language-based ethnicity and so-called Urheimats, etc, and come to grips that ethnicity is a tool of political and ecnomic factors, and is thereby complex, often multi-levelled, and liable to change. When you have done so, you will realize what I am trying to say and look past the fact that I am Slav who is merely trying to undermine Greek glory Hxseek (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Hxseek, when you produce some specific study based on any of these theories regarding the ancient Macedonians then we can also include it in the article. Synthesizing theories in order to make our own conclusions is not what we are supposed to do. I want to say LESS about the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians, not more. This is why I suggest we present both theories in a single line and move on. This is not a study about general anthropological theories regarding ethnogenesis. This is an article about a specific people with hundreds of books and studies as references. All these arguments about how complex the whole issue is is not our scope. The same applies to any other people and any other process of ethnogenesis. Maybe you should write an appropriate article presenting these theories and not want to apply them in specific articles about specific people as original research. Whatever these books say about the Macedonians we may include if we see fit. This has nothing to do with Greek glory. If I wanted to do that I would suggest we leave the article as is, not change it. So, reading Barthsl and Renfrew is helpful, but unless they have occupied themselves with the specific issue, then we cannot include their opinions/theories in the article. What I am saying is that you make efforts to produce your own theory based on the writings of those or any other scholars. This of course is not objective and will never be accepted by those who will not like your personal conclusions. GK (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I suppose you're right about that, GK. We ofcourse should stick to the topic at hand and not get too general and discussion oriented. However, at the same time, we should not shy away from some discussion, especially when there are works which discuss the issue specifically about Macedonians. We should not shy away from it because of the controversy associated with modern political issues, but study it becuase it is interesting in itself. There is nothing wrong with this, it is not engaging in 'racialism' or what have you. the identity of Macedonians was shaped by a multitude of factors, and I will include this as discussed by some recent very good scholarly works. Hxseek (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Since the overwhelming majority of classical historians and professors at leading institutions around the world consider the Macedonians to be Greek, the onus is on the detractors to present reliable sources stating otherwise. This should NOT be in the lead. There are some scholars (people with PhD's) who believe no airplanes hit the WTC on 9/11, there is a conspiracy section on that page for such things. it is NOT in the lead. stating that some scholars believe that the ancient macedonians were not greek in the LEAD makes it seem like there are a significant number of these people, which there are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.179.190 (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Either this article needs Disambiguation, or portion of initial paragraph of the article should inform the reader that this article does not refer to the history of the people of the modern 'Republic of Macedonia'... There is much confusion about this on wikipedia !!
This situation is unique on wikipedia because today there are unfortunately two cultural groups who call themselves 'Macedonians'. This confuses people because when they read ancient sources they might think they are referring to the ancestors of the slavic people who make up the modern day Republic of Macedonia (RoM), when infact, they are referring to the ancestors of the Greek Macedonians who live in Modern day Greece.
Sadly due to this confusion, many people do not know that there are Greek Macedonians, and Slavic Macedonians (who live in the 'Republic of Macedonia) are different peoples and cultures.
For example, If I were to read about the 'Ancient Egyptian' people, I would assume that I would be reading about the ancient peoples who make up the cultural and historic background of the Modern day Egyptians living in the same geographical area. (i.e. the people who built the pyramids)
Imagine if the article was about a small town in Sudan called 'Egypt' that had nothing to do with what I was looking for!? This would require disambiguation, either to say 'This article is about the Ancient People of the small town of Egypt, Sudan' with disambiguation pointing to 'Ancient Egyptians', or vice versa.
If I am modern day Slavic Macedonian, and I come to this Article, I am very shocked to find that it is NOT talking about my country and my people. My children will come here to read about their country and slavic heritage, but they will find an article discussing different people culturally, from a different geographical area, and a different time period. it is in fact talking about the Ancient Greeks Macedonians!
I want to know about the Ancient Slavic Macedonians from the Modern day RoM so that my children can find out the truth about their slavic heritage. We either must have disambiguation, or some paragraph describing that this article does not describe the ancestors of the slavic modern day macedonians. Because in accordance with wikipedia rules, when two different articles share the same name, there must be disambiguation.
Should I create another article called 'Ancient Macedonians' myself, and declare that is is discussing the ancestors of the modern RoM? And then there will be a disambiguation page?
or should this article just be edited to eradicate any confusion?
I propose either A) 'The Macedonians (Greek: Μακεδόνες, Makedónes) were an ancient Greek people inhabiting the alluvial plain around the rivers Haliacmon and lower Axius in the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula.'
or B) The Macedonians (Greek: Μακεδόνες, Makedónes) were an ancient people inhabiting the alluvial plain around the rivers Haliacmon and lower Axius in the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula, not to be confused with ancestors of todays Slavic Republic of Macedonia'
This way the reader knows immediately which 'Ancient Macedonians' the article is talking about. It is very important to resolve this ambiguous issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.149.42 (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
About the unscientific allegations that the ancient Macedonians of Alexander's time were not Greeks please see the opinion of hundreds of international scholars who wrote a letter to President Barack Obama regarding the issue.
Can someone still explain why this article is lacking the term 'greek' people in the opening line?
"Macedonian Greeks have been located for at least 2,500 years just where the modern Greek province of Macedonia is. Exactly this same relationship is true for Attica and Athenian Greeks, Argos and Argive Greeks, Corinth and Corinthian Greeks, etc. "
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.149.42 (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I did not realize there was a limit on text posts, I apologize. I was merely trying to get my point across that the majority of scholars who will unequivocally consider the macedonians greek, far far far outweigh any detractors.
Here are 5, among over 300 professors and chairs of classical history and archaeology from leading universities (including harvard, oxford, cambridge, brown, princeton, ...) who state unequivocally that the ancient macedonians were greeks. these people have spent their lives researching the subject, they are the experts.
John Duffy, Professor, Department of the Classics, Harvard University (USA)
Christian Habicht, Professor of Ancient History, Emeritus, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton (USA)
Antony Snodgrass, Professor Emeritus of Classical Archaeology, University of Cambridge (UK)
Robin Lane Fox, University Reader in Ancient History, New College, Oxford (UK)
Julia Lougovaya, Assistant Professor, Department of Classics, Columbia University (USA)
Alan Boegehold, Emeritus Professor of Classics, Brown University (USA)
The point I am trying to make, is that by not sufficiently stating that the Ancient Macedonians described on this page are Greek, there is confusion to the lay-person that this page is describing the ancestors of the modern 'Republic of Macedonia' . Either this page should state in the first line that this page describes the ancient greek people, (and a section on the page somewhere indicating that there is a small group of people (probably less then 1% of scholars), who might think otherwise) OR this page should be renamed to 'Ancient Macedonia (Greece)' and we must create another page for disambiguation pointing to 'Ancient Macedonia (Republic of Macedonia)'.
It is sad to say, but since there is a modern country that people call 'Macedonia', we need to be specific to prevent confusion..... As a slavic macedonian from Republic of Macedonia (RoM), I do not want my children typing in 'Ancient Macedonia' , and thinking that they are reading about the ancestors of the modern-day 'Republic of Macedonia'.
I think there are 2 options. Either A) the first line should read that 'the ancient macedonians were a greek people' , so the reader IMMEDIATELY knows that they are talking about the macedonia as it pertains to the classical world (and the rest of the opening paragraph can be adjusted accordingly), or B) we need two pages for 'Ancient Macedonia' in order to disambiguate between ancient 'greek' macedonians (as defined by 300+ leading scholars), and Ancient Slavic Macedonians. (If people still want to complain about the ethnicity of the Ancient Greek Macedonians, then they can create a small section on that page linking to the tiny minority that disagrees with the consensus among historians)
I know the RoM is a new country politically, but we surely have an ancient past just like the Greek Macedonians. I am sad to come to this page and not see enough of a disambiguation. I am also sad to see many countrymen from RoM ignoring the fact that we are not greeks and have nothing to do with the ancient Macedonians of greece. All I want is for clear disambiguation between the ancient people of my country (RoM), and the ancient greek macedonians of greece. --173.209.149.42 (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The whole origins section is awkward and out of scope. Both the "ancient sources" and the "participation in panhellenic events" sections should go. I propose that for starters we direct this section to Ancient Macedonia - Early history and legends. The atticization section also is meaningless, since it talks about language and attraction of Greek minds, which also has nothing to do with the Macedonians... Actually the whole article is crappy... I have always been a proponent that it should not be merged with Ancient Macedonia but it needs to be completely redone. I suggest that we start from scratch. Completely erase everything, have a good lead as start and start adding sections, even with very poor content at first. We should not concentrate on the ultimate question so that we are not thrown off track and start adding material that has to do with the Macedonians :
1. Appearance in History
2. Tribes
3. Culture
4. Traditions
5. Religion
6. Expansion of the Macedonian identity (conquests and macedonization of certain non-Macedonian cities within Macedon)
7. History of Migration (in Hellenistic times)
and anything else you would like to add, like funerary customs, inventions, famous artists, writers etc. I need you guys to agree with the almost total deletion of the contents in this article if we are to make something good out of it without endless reversions and empty debates as to the Greekness or not of the ancient Macedonians.
GK (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 5.
I agree, like i said earlier, we need to synthesie all the evidence to construct a decent ethnology section, ie include historical accounts, archaeological finds, linguistic evidence, customs, etc. Becuase all these things are reflective of their ethnicity and identity. And yes, we should not focus on whether they are A or B Hxseek (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I have ordered a few good books, hope to come in next few weeks. I will chew through them Hxseek (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
-> There is a promising new book about Ancient Macedonia to be released in Dec 2010. It looks to be quite useful. Should we postpone our re-do here until it is released, so that we may reference it ? Hxseek (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It is the book, and I found the book very good. Unlike you, Mr A "Macedonian", not all editors are short-sited nationalists who merely regurgitate the "facts" out of propper context and full discussion just to aggressively push their own POV Hxseek (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
"Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars."
The overwhelming consensus among scholars is that the ancient macedonians were a greek people. Why is this not expressed in the opening sentence? What Agenda do anti-hellenic POV cliques have here to refute this? The wikipedia article on alexander the great clearly states in the opening sentence that he is a 'GREEK' king. The onus is on detractors to put forward a convincing argument that goes against the consensus that among scholars the ancient macedonians were part and parcel part of the greek ethnos. Just like Athens, Corinth, Sparta, Aegina, Thebes, Megara, etc, etc, etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.97.72 (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Fellas, please just step back and refrain from aggressively toned editing. As F.P. has stated, it is not simply a matter of yes/ no. What many do not know, and perhaps certain editors connected with this article choose to ignore/ delete, is that the Macedonians also had many lifestyle, religious, organizational and cultural features with other peoples, eg Thracians. Even Persian influences were present. These facts, in themslevs does not mean, that they were 25 % "Thracian", 75% "Greek", or whatever. All peoples borrow, intermix, etc with others. Macedonia has always been a melting pot, and there is no reason to deny that during the period of 7th to 2nd centuries BC, to the contrary , probably more so than ever. Identity is subjective, and cannot be compared against a 'check-list' of objective criteria, eg language, religion, - althugh no doubt they can and often do enable recognition of 'sameness'.
If you are an honest person and scholar, you will know that the earliest period of Macedonian existence is one of obscurity. Certainly, Macedonia was not part of "Mycaenean Greece". Yet, no one in their right mind will deny that at least the Macedonian nobility wanted to be seen as part of the "Pan-Hellenic civilization". On the other hand, contemporary Greek attitudes as to Greekness of Macedonians was rather ambivalent {something which continues to be excluded in the 'ancient sources' section on this article}, but certainly were eventually seen as Greek (by both Greeks and Romans) by the 3rd or 2nd century BC. One must also clarify, compare and contrast, what being "Greek" meant 2, 500 years ago compared to today - they are rather different things.
Great volumes of work regarding 'ethnicity'- how it forms, is maintained, is liable to change, and is often manipulated to achieve political goals have been written by western scholars over the past 4 decades. Unfortunately, these developments have failed to permeate historical scholarship in eastern Europe and Greece, until very recently. What is regarded as 'traditional' and 'accepted' is actually outdated and simplistic.
What I want to see happening with this article is to develop it into a sophisticated, academic article whose main purpose is not to argue whether they were greek or not, but discuss all the aspects involved in the how, why, and when of Macedonian formation. This was a complex and highly complicated affair.
To that anonymous editor's statements about modern Maceodnians and Bulgarians. This should have nothing to do with Ancient Macedonian article. But your comments do highlight how scholars and lay people like yourself have unfortunately 'nationalized' an issue from a time when nationality did not even exist ! FYI: the scholar who instigated the protest of American recognition as RoM received criticism by other scholars, and many of those who initially signed his document subsequently withdrew their support
FYI # 2: You might not know, and apparently nor dos the esteemed former Macedonian PM, Mr Gligorov, modern Macedonians are not simply invaders from Russia or Poland. This is also an outdated idea. Yes, there were invasions/migrations, but this has always happened. The "Sklavenes" who raided the Balkans in the 6th century were merely bands of relatively disorganized young warriors merely looting and raiding, numbering in the hundreds (not hundreds of thousands). They did not wipe out the 'indegenous' Balkan, including regional Macedonian, inhabitants, nor could such few numbers of people cuase the evident large-scale "demographic" changes in the Balkans. Rather, the appearance of Slavs and Slavic language throughout the Blakans, Greece included, was the result of numerus, complicated and still poorly understood mechanisms lasting several centuries. They related to the decline of the Roman order, economic collapse, restructuring and re-orientation of the Balkan interior toward central Europe, in particular the Avar khanate. So if it it's "bloodlines" your concerned about, then modern FYROMANIANS (as some arrogant people like to call them) have the very same Bakan blood that Greeks and Albanians do. And, of course, you do know that Greek Macedonia was almost entirely Slavic, and was only fully re-Hellenized in the 21st century due to the efforts of that great humanitarian, Mr Metaxas. I wonder how much "Macedonian" blood all the Syrians, Armenians, Pontic Greeks and Siciliians that the Byantines imported have ?
Happy New Year !
Hxseek (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see the above sections, and try to come to a consensus with the other editors before attempting to simply present a slanted view from Borza (a fringe view in Academia). HxSeek's edit was POV editing. Furthermore, it was too long and did not belong in the Lead as it was counter to the academic consensus. If you wish to present alternative views they are usually done in their own section.
For example, on the wikipedia page for the Moon Landing, the conspiracy theory that the americans did not land on the moon is not in the lead, as it is far outside consensus. It has its own section.
Again, the consensus among Academics is that the Macedonians were undisputedly Greek, just like the Athenians, Corinthians, Thebeans, Spartans, and the rest.
Here are 5, among over 350 professors and chairs of classical history and archaeology from leading universities (including harvard, oxford, cambridge, brown, princeton, ...) who state unequivocally that the ancient macedonians were greeks. these people have spent their lives researching the subject, they are the experts. John Duffy, Professor, Department of the Classics, Harvard University (USA) Christian Habicht, Professor of Ancient History, Emeritus, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton (USA) Antony Snodgrass, Professor Emeritus of Classical Archaeology, University of Cambridge (UK) Robin Lane Fox, University Reader in Ancient History, New College, Oxford (UK) Julia Lougovaya, Assistant Professor, Department of Classics, Columbia University (USA) Alan Boegehold, Emeritus Professor of Classics, Brown University (USA) The rest of the list of Scholars is here. http://macedonia-evidence.org
All these people disagree with Borza.
Attempting to put his views in the Lead is editorializing. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to present the facts to the lay person as they are. For historical topics, we present the Academic consensus.
could wish for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
people are of no Relevance? A statement like this brings your credibility into question. The Academics make the consensus, not yourself of HxSeek, nor Borza, nor Roisman. What HxSeek tried to do was call into question the Greekness of the Macedonians in the lead to push your POV, and did so using fringe and minority beleifs.... I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but I would guess that HxSeek is pushing Modern Day views from the 'Republic of Macdeonia', who frequently try to call into question the Greekness of the Ancient Macedonians to fit their political agendas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.97.72 (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure how I overlooked this, but there is already a section regarding HxSeek's text in this article. Its called 'Modern Discussions'. HxSeek's text (though, would still need some changes) would be much more appropriate there. Though if he would like to discuss new authors and works, it should be an additive revision. He should not simply remove old text and dump his own unilaterally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.97.72 (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] ☼ 11:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
If the consensus is it's best suited in latter paragraph, fine. However, don.t make BS allegations of POV u when it is rather obvious, I would have thought, that
my addition was in good faith and neutral.
I have included the most recent work by a body of experts. I put effort in that to make the article better. If that despoils ur nationalistic POV, then so be it.
The worst thing is, all these books and experts which continue to be quoted either (a) aren't even discussing the issue at a depth (b) are misrepresented by editors as self-evident conclusions, when the case is contrary. This is shameful, and it merely shows that people will resort to lying for the sake of blind- sighted nationalism. (case in point, that article of mycaenean pottery, which actually proves nothing ) - as FP pointed out also
In fact, many of those "list" of scholars who signed the letter of protestation as to the Greekness of Macedonians withdrew their names, and the scholar who instigated the whole affair was public ally criticized. Again, this is conveniently left out'. Or is it mere ignorance?
The simple truth is, if u've bothered to actually read anything recent and in-depth, that a considerable body of scholars have, highlighted that ethnicity was a complex issue. Certain scholars have evolved their understanding of the issue, and changed their conclusions, Eg Engels. Indeed a large corpus do mirror essentially what Hamond concluded. A great man, and much admired for his love of the region, his conclusions, however, are actually based on very tenuous pretense- and only Borza was able to see this. Currently, AFAIK, there is an article awaiting publication which might bring even greater critique to Hammond's methodology. Nothing against the guy, but his writing is essentially half a century old, and he has fallen behind the anthropological "8- ball".
So is the issue straightforward? No. And further work is required in this article. Eg the ancient sources section. I'm sure that every primary school kid knows that historical sources need to be critiqued and contextualized. This is not "post-modernism", but basic history. Moreover, certain editors seem most knowledgable with literary evidence which connects the Macedonians with Greeks, but seem blissfully unaware of sources which point to the opposite, even if written by the very same ancient authors. Strange coincidences and patterns are clearly evident. Is anyone here a nationalist ? It is certainly neither F.P., nor I. So let's be mature, open-minded and un-Balkan about this
Hxseek (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
ethnicities and also about how the perceptions changed -from "aggregative" (a sense of identity built on mythical genealogies) in the Archaic world to "oppositional" in Classical times (a sense of identity built against Persians and other outsiders). Daizus (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
General question: When we say something like: A great man, and much admired for his love of the region, his conclusions, however, are actually based on very tenuous pretense- and only Borza was able to see this. What does that mean exactly? Does it mean that in this field of Macedonian ethnicity anyone can develop a theory, publish the theory in a book and that's that? What happened to peer reviewed academic journals in this area? All this talk
about ...only Borza was able to see this. Did Borza bother to put forth his theory of rebutting Hamond's conclusions in a paper published at a peer reviewed journal? Did that hypothetical paper gain acceptance in the wider academic community? How many cites did it get? Did Borza just write a book about it, in which case the book represents only his views? Is Borza somehow a unique genius who captured some idea which eluded every other scholar? Same of course goes about the "aggregative" and "oppositional" theories expalined above. What is the acceptance of these theories in the wider academic community? I would be disappointed to find out that someone came up with these concepts, published a book about them but did not publish them in a peer-reviewed academic journal. All these theories are just that: "theories", until they gain acceptance in the wider academic community through publication in respected journals. They should also be widely cited in academic works following their journal publication. Anything less than that should be academically suspect. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
publications (with major academic publishers) have traditionally been regarded as at least as important, and papers in collected volumes (like the Malkin one mentioned above) are usually peer-reviewed just like journals. In B.'s case, the monograph In the Shadow of Olympus still seems to be the central and most frequently cited work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It is hard to gauge what's "widely accepted". Certainly he is heavily referenced and published. Part of the problem is that only borza and Hammond go Kongo the "nitty-gritty" of the archaeology. Hammond concludes that the Macedonians were Greek only due to ONE reason - he argus that that the Macedonians represented a " pool" of NW Greek speakers who lived in central Epirus since Bronze Age - the same group which led the Dorian migration and those that
remained later became part of the Argeaad's royal led migration. Otherwise, he saw the Macedonians as virtually totally un-Greek. Saw it was their language- an Aeolic form, which linked them to Greeks. (see his vol 1 on Macedonia).
However, hiis linguistic conclusions are wrong, or at least jumping the gun. Quite simply , linguists aren't so bold as to definitively conclude that they spoke Greek, in fact, certain features suggest that it is not! As per Chadwick, echoed by Mallory and Engels in latest publication. Not only that, but his " pool of Greek speakers " theory (a) lacks any Tangible evidence (the earliest epigraphic finds are from5th century!) (b) overlooks the fact that linguists are not even sure when and from where Greek speakers arrived (c) relies on mythological traditions as historical "fact" and (d) relies on the ethno-political situation from the 5th century to "trace back" events to preceding millenium, as if things remained 'frozen' in time; and (e) is unaware that the Dorian invasion hypothesis has been seriously discredited.
All these things are well discussed, rather less so, however, in direct connection to the question of Macedonian origins. So it becomes clear that the only basis which Hammond makes his conclusion is not on very firm footing. He, rather, does not engage in the more rewarding discussion of anthropology which sees ethnicity as a negotiation between groups in opposition, which Engles and Hall have attempted to do so
We can always work on this later. For now, I think we can accept my paragraph as a conclusion for the 'discussion' section .
Hxseek (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Why was this removed from the end of the lead? "Some scholars have suggested that they had formed a distinct ethnos before they were linguistically and culturally fully integrated into the Greek world by the 5th or 4th century BC, however most scholars concur that the ancient Macedonians were Greek people throughout their history.[1][2][3]" It is a short and concise description of the ethnicity/culture/langauge of the Macedonians according to the majority consensus, and definetly is appropriate to be in the lead, as it has been for ages. Can someone with an account restore it? I cannot because I don't have a confirmed account and this page is protected. According to WP:NPOV the article must give precedence to the majority consensus. 174.117.97.72 (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, I have done some research and I feel that HxSeek/FP are agenda pushing and editorializing. For example, they used a source written by Ian Worthing (currently #24) when they state that trying to identify the greekness of the 'macedonians' is 'highly problematic'.... in an attempt to make it seem like this a real issue in academia when infact it is not.... they attempt to give undue weight to the minority view by doing this... but they decline to inform the reader what Worthington's actual position is.
Ian Worthington: "... not much need to be said about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia: it is undeniable. ("Philip II of Macedonia", Yale University Press, 2008)
What they have done in effect, is picked and chosen from what they want the reader to see... Ian Worthington in basically says 1. "Idenfitying the greekness of the Ancient Macedonians is highly problematic because ......." but comes to the conclusion that 2. "not much need to be said about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia: it is undeniable" .. How convenient that HxSeek/FP have chosen to use Worthington for the first part, but ignoring his conviction that the Ancient Macedonians are undeniably Greek in culture and ethnicity.
They end their text off with quoting borza (a fringe view in academia), to basically say "It's not important to worry about if the Macedonians were part of the greek culture, who cares if they were practically identical ethnically, culturally, and linguistically to the other greeks, what matters is that they were Macedonians". They are basically trying to say that it's not important to discuss the Majority view in Academia that the ancient Macedonians were a Greek people.... How does that make sense? Isn't the point of this page to DISCUSS the ethnicity, culture, and language of the Ancient Macedonians? I'm dumbfounded.
Really, this blatant editorializing and not within the spirit of Wikipedia. I don't know how to make it more clear that HxSeek/FP are not editing within WP:NPOV, and are agenda pushing. I really hope some other users with accounts will become aware of this. 174.117.97.72 (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
--
I did some research on Eugene N. Borza, who HxSeek/FP like to use as a source to try and understand their motivations.... Here is an interesting quote from him.
"Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians, cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. Only the most radical Slavic factions—mostly émigrés in the United States, Canada, and Australia—even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity [...] The twentieth-century development of a Macedonian ethnicity, and its recent evolution into independent statehood following the collapse of the Yugoslav state in 1991, has followed a rocky road. In order to survive the vicissitudes of Balkan history and politics, the Macedonians, who have had no history, need one. They reside in a territory once part of a famous ancient kingdom, which has borne the Macedonian name as a region ever since and was called ”Macedonia” for nearly half a century as part of Yugoslavia. And they speak a language now recognized by most linguists outside Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece as a south Slavic language separate from Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, and Bulgarian. Their own so-called Macedonian ethnicity had evolved for more than a century, and thus it seemed natural and appropriate for them to call the new nation “Macedonia” and to attempt to provide some cultural references to bolster ethnic survival. ("Macedonia Redux", in "The Eye Expanded: life and the arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity", ed. Frances B Tichener & Richard F. Moorton, University of California Press, 1999)
Very interesting what Borza has to say here. Could it be that HxSeek/FP are some of the modern Macedonian Slavs Borza is talking about, who attempt to discount the Greekness of the Macedonians in order to create a false history for themselves? Is it possible that the very man they quote to discount the 'greek' identifier of the ancient Macedonians, states the very reason for them wanting to do so??
I think that the Modern Discussion section could be expanded to add some of the reasons for the increased frequency of Modern Discussion regarding 'Greekness of Ancient Macedonians' in the past 20 years (With the creation of the republic of macedonia), and what effect in particular the topic Borza speaks about has to do with it.... 174.117.97.72 (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)