Greek Australian Advisory Council and the falsification of Ancient Macedonian history Part 13
Risto Stefov
November 26, 2008
This is a response to the Australian Macedonian Advisory Council (which in fact is Greek masquerading as Macedonian) in regards to the article entitled "Risto Stefov and the falsification of Ancient Macedonian history" published on October 29, 2008 at this link: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/79306
My reply to you is "Two can play that game!" I too can provide you with just as many arguments that the Ancient Macedonians WERE NOT Greek. BUT!
It is irrelevant, at least to me, if Modern Greeks claim that the Ancient Macedonians were Greeks or not, what is relevant here is that the Modern Greeks are not related to the Ancient Greeks or to the Ancient Macedonians. They call themselves "Greeks" but have nothing to do with the ancient Greeks or Ancient Macedonians because underneath their modern artificial Greek veneer is nothing more than Albanians, Vlachs, Turks and Macedonians, the same variety of Balkanites that exists throughout the entire southern Balkans. But, if they insist on accusing me of falsifying Ancient Macedonian history, then here is my rebuttal:
MACEDONIANS AND ROMANS
On the alleged "Greek-ness" of the ancient Macedonians
1) Why was the Lamian war called the Hellenic war? And who, indeed, were these Hellenes fighting against?
2) Didn't the Greek states actively fight on Darius' side against Macedonia?
3) Didn't the Greek states actively fight on the side of Rome against Macedonia?
In a speech delivered at Sparta in 210 BC the Aetolian Claeneas, appealing for Spartan collaboration in the Roman alliance against Macedonia, is said by Polybius (ix, 28, ) to have opened with the truism: 'Men of Sparta, I am quite certain that nobody would venture to deny that the slavery of Greece owes its origin to the kings of Macedonia'.....He goes on to describe in detail the outrages which Philip, Alexander and their third-century successors have inflicted on the Greek cities." p.92-3 from "The Hellenistic World" by F.W. Walbank.
Keep in mind: Macedonia was not a member of the Hellenic League. Greece was conquered territory, it was a "land won by the Macedonian spear", and not united by Philip II.
Greece remained a conquered territory for a century after Philip and Alexander.
Any assertion that the Greek city-states sought and fought on the same side as the Macedonians is groundless.
Relationship with Macedonia was as loaded a question in the third and second centuries BC as it had been in the fourth. The Macedonian policy of controlling Greece was up against the Greek passion for freedom and autonomy". p. 92 from "The Hellenistic World" by F.W. Walbank.
The war ended in disaster for the Greeks, and in 261 BC Athens had to surrender. Areus of Sparta was killed fighting near Corinth, and for about ten years Antigonus' control of Greece was unchallenged". p. 95 from "The Hellenistic World" by F.W. Walbank.
If the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks were the same people (supposedly all Greek) then one has to reconcile the fact that the Roman senate and T. Quintius were incorrect in their statements: "...having defeated King Philip and the Macedonians, leave the following peoples free, without garrison and subject to no tribute and governed by their countries' laws - the Corinthians, Phocians, Locrians, Euboeans, Phtiotic, Achaeans, Magnesians, Thessalians, and Perrhaebians (Polybius, xviii, 46,5) p.98 from "The Hellenistic World" by F.W. Walbank.
Rome was the "protector of Greek freedom" while she was engaged in a war with Macedonia.
ANCIENT MACEDONIANS AND THEIR MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE
Scholars, based on long and painstaking work and encompassing varied disciplines have, to a certain extent, arrived at an acceptable consensus regarding the ancients. You will be able to read the latest interpretations of history by the most prominent scholars and revisionists of the twentieth century. Here we make a deliberate effort to distance ourselves from scholars and literature emanating from the Balkans -- in order to avoid the trappings of politics and bias.
The main concern of this study will be the "Macedonian language"
MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE - THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM
The language used by the ancient Macedonians has been deliberately politicized by Greece. It is, therefore, imperative, given the complexity of the situation, to carefully address the two structural underpinnings on which this issue (un)comfortably rests:
(A) The political aspect of the problem, and (B) The technical aspect of the problem.
(A) POLITICAL
The political aspect of the problem can be assessed trough the following observations/questions:
(1) Why are modern-day Greeks obliged to deny the existence of a separate Macedonian language?
(2) What is the driving force behind such an act?
(3) What degree of association can one assign between language and ethnicity.
(B) TECHNICAL
Here, we need to elaborate and examine their assertions that:
(1)"There was no Macedonian language."
(2) "Ancient Macedonian spoke Greek, and therefore they were Greeks."
(A) POLITICAL
(1) By denying that the ancient Macedonians spoke a separate [non-Greek] language, modern Greeks can: (1) declare that the ancient Macedonians were Greek speakers, and simplistically conclude that (2) they must also have been ethnically Greek.
(2) The driving force behind such desperate reasoning is Greece's fear of losing the newly-acquired "province of Macedonia." If Greece fails to establish that the ancient Macedonians were Greek speakers, or ethnically Greek, then the part of Macedonia which is independent (the Republic of Macedonia) may place a claim on its lost territory and abused population.
Under the Treaty of Bucharest (1913) Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia partitioned Macedonia and distributed it (and its indigenous population) amongst themselves. Serbia has relinquished control over the Macedonian territory it acquired. This is an acknowledgement that Macedonia is not "Southern Serbia" and that the partition of Macedonia was not legal to begin with. Similarly, Macedonia is not "Northern Greece." In a broader sense, Greece anticipates that the hands of justice may someday reach for her and demand the return of the "stolen" booty.
(3) This is an issue of enormous importance to modern-day Greeks who are indoctrinated to believe that use of language equals ethnicity. Furthermore, most Greeks today equate their ethnic identity with the nation state. As a consequence, the use of a common language would denote a common nationality. However, the concept of a separate ethnicity within the nation state is completely lost upon them.
(B) TECHNICAL
The technical aspect of the problem requires a much deeper analysis. To better understand the Greek-revisionist claim, and to be able to properly address the issue, we require clarification of the ambiguous Greek position.
(1) Does the Greek claim about Macedonia suggest that ancient Macedonians were Greek because they sometimes 'used' the ancient Greek language?
(2) Is it being claimed that the ancient Macedonian language was Greek in both: written and spoken form?
(3) Do the modern citizens of Greece really believe that language is the primary identifying aspect, or component in discerning one's ethnicity?
(4) Was the language that the Ancient Macedonians spoke, in fact, Greek, or perhaps, a Greek dialect?
Before we tackle these questions, I would like to make some comparative observation of analogous situations where the instrument of communication, the spoken/written language of a given population/community or a country, does not by itself identify the ethnic/national character of the users in general.
First and foremost one must keep in mind that the language used by people does not by itself identify their ethnicity. We communicate in English, and we all come from different ethnic backgrounds. South American countries use the Spanish language, (Brazil excluded), and yet, not everyone is Spanish. History is replete with examples where people speak the same language yet identify themselves as ethnically different.
Professor Ernst Badian from Harvard University writes: "The idea that a nation is essentially defined by a language and that, conversely a common language means a common Nationhood - which is patently untrue for the greater part of human history and to a large extent even today". ("Studies in the History of Art Vol. 10: Macedonia and Greece in late classical and early Hellenistic Times".)
The implicit assumption is that ethnicity is determined and/or identified through a common language. This pattern of thinking continues further through the implication that ancient Macedonians spoke Greek, and therefore, they were Greeks. Consequently, everything that has been identified as "Macedonian"- is Greek, including, most importantly, the name itself.
Fourth century silver coins from the Persian province of 'Yehud' imitate "Greek issues for trading with the Greeks." There had already been Greek influence in Judea as early as the fifth century B.C., and many Jews especially the wealthy ones from the towns of Seleucia and Gadara, were prepared to accept a measure of Hellenism. Even in Judea "Greek was rapidly becoming the language of government and big business." Furthermore, the pro-Hasmonean books I and II Maccabees, though totally pro Jewish, were written in Greek. Jews in Alexandria used the Greek language extensively; "On the Kings of Judea" was written in Greek by a certain Demetrius.
Thracian silver coins and vessels from the fifth century B.C. bear Greek inscriptions, and yet, the Greek archeologists have never claimed this people as Greek. Late eighteenth century nobility in Russia and Germany used the French language as a mode of communication. Were they proclaiming their French nationality? Therefore, we must ask ourselves: Where do we draw the line? With what precision and certainty, do we ascribe Greek ethnic character to the Ancient Macedonians when we are confronted with such overwhelming analogous evidence?
Let us peruse the available literary evidence and see what those who know more than us have to say:
Eugene Borza: "The lesson is clear: the use of the Greek language as a form of written expression does not by itself identify the ethnicity of a culture". ("In the Shadow of Olympus -The Emergence of Macedon", p. 94.)
On p. 89 from the same source we find Borza discussing the arrival of the Macedonian tribes in the Balkans.
As the Macedonians settled the region following the expulsion of existing peoples, they probably introduced their own customs and language(s); there is no evidence that they adapted any existing language, even though they were now in contact with neighboring populations who spoke a variety of Greek and non-Greek tongues."
It is proper, and even compelling, to expect that the arriving Macedonians already had an existing oral language.
Ulrich Wilcken in his book 'Alexander the Great' notes on p. 22: "Linguistic science has at its disposal a very limited quantity of Macedonian words"
The main evidence for Macedonian existing as a separate language comes from a handful of late sources describing events in the train of Alexander the Great where the Macedonian tongue is specifically mentioned". ("In the Shadow of Olympus", p.92.)
The evidence suggests that Macedonian was distinct from the ordinary Attic Greek used as the language of the court and of diplomacy".
No matter how hard Modern Greeks try to prove otherwise, there is always more than one side to their story!
To be continued.
Many thanks to J.S.G. Gandeto for his contribution to this article.
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com
My reply to you is "Two can play that game!" I too can provide you with just as many arguments that the Ancient Macedonians WERE NOT Greek. BUT!
It is irrelevant, at least to me, if Modern Greeks claim that the Ancient Macedonians were Greeks or not, what is relevant here is that the Modern Greeks are not related to the Ancient Greeks or to the Ancient Macedonians. They call themselves "Greeks" but have nothing to do with the ancient Greeks or Ancient Macedonians because underneath their modern artificial Greek veneer is nothing more than Albanians, Vlachs, Turks and Macedonians, the same variety of Balkanites that exists throughout the entire southern Balkans. But, if they insist on accusing me of falsifying Ancient Macedonian history, then here is my rebuttal:
MACEDONIANS AND ROMANS
On the alleged "Greek-ness" of the ancient Macedonians
1) Why was the Lamian war called the Hellenic war? And who, indeed, were these Hellenes fighting against?
2) Didn't the Greek states actively fight on Darius' side against Macedonia?
3) Didn't the Greek states actively fight on the side of Rome against Macedonia?
In a speech delivered at Sparta in 210 BC the Aetolian Claeneas, appealing for Spartan collaboration in the Roman alliance against Macedonia, is said by Polybius (ix, 28, ) to have opened with the truism: 'Men of Sparta, I am quite certain that nobody would venture to deny that the slavery of Greece owes its origin to the kings of Macedonia'.....He goes on to describe in detail the outrages which Philip, Alexander and their third-century successors have inflicted on the Greek cities." p.92-3 from "The Hellenistic World" by F.W. Walbank.
Keep in mind: Macedonia was not a member of the Hellenic League. Greece was conquered territory, it was a "land won by the Macedonian spear", and not united by Philip II.
Greece remained a conquered territory for a century after Philip and Alexander.
Any assertion that the Greek city-states sought and fought on the same side as the Macedonians is groundless.
Relationship with Macedonia was as loaded a question in the third and second centuries BC as it had been in the fourth. The Macedonian policy of controlling Greece was up against the Greek passion for freedom and autonomy". p. 92 from "The Hellenistic World" by F.W. Walbank.
The war ended in disaster for the Greeks, and in 261 BC Athens had to surrender. Areus of Sparta was killed fighting near Corinth, and for about ten years Antigonus' control of Greece was unchallenged". p. 95 from "The Hellenistic World" by F.W. Walbank.
If the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks were the same people (supposedly all Greek) then one has to reconcile the fact that the Roman senate and T. Quintius were incorrect in their statements: "...having defeated King Philip and the Macedonians, leave the following peoples free, without garrison and subject to no tribute and governed by their countries' laws - the Corinthians, Phocians, Locrians, Euboeans, Phtiotic, Achaeans, Magnesians, Thessalians, and Perrhaebians (Polybius, xviii, 46,5) p.98 from "The Hellenistic World" by F.W. Walbank.
Rome was the "protector of Greek freedom" while she was engaged in a war with Macedonia.
ANCIENT MACEDONIANS AND THEIR MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE
Scholars, based on long and painstaking work and encompassing varied disciplines have, to a certain extent, arrived at an acceptable consensus regarding the ancients. You will be able to read the latest interpretations of history by the most prominent scholars and revisionists of the twentieth century. Here we make a deliberate effort to distance ourselves from scholars and literature emanating from the Balkans -- in order to avoid the trappings of politics and bias.
The main concern of this study will be the "Macedonian language"
MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE - THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM
The language used by the ancient Macedonians has been deliberately politicized by Greece. It is, therefore, imperative, given the complexity of the situation, to carefully address the two structural underpinnings on which this issue (un)comfortably rests:
(A) The political aspect of the problem, and (B) The technical aspect of the problem.
(A) POLITICAL
The political aspect of the problem can be assessed trough the following observations/questions:
(1) Why are modern-day Greeks obliged to deny the existence of a separate Macedonian language?
(2) What is the driving force behind such an act?
(3) What degree of association can one assign between language and ethnicity.
(B) TECHNICAL
Here, we need to elaborate and examine their assertions that:
(1)"There was no Macedonian language."
(2) "Ancient Macedonian spoke Greek, and therefore they were Greeks."
(A) POLITICAL
(1) By denying that the ancient Macedonians spoke a separate [non-Greek] language, modern Greeks can: (1) declare that the ancient Macedonians were Greek speakers, and simplistically conclude that (2) they must also have been ethnically Greek.
(2) The driving force behind such desperate reasoning is Greece's fear of losing the newly-acquired "province of Macedonia." If Greece fails to establish that the ancient Macedonians were Greek speakers, or ethnically Greek, then the part of Macedonia which is independent (the Republic of Macedonia) may place a claim on its lost territory and abused population.
Under the Treaty of Bucharest (1913) Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia partitioned Macedonia and distributed it (and its indigenous population) amongst themselves. Serbia has relinquished control over the Macedonian territory it acquired. This is an acknowledgement that Macedonia is not "Southern Serbia" and that the partition of Macedonia was not legal to begin with. Similarly, Macedonia is not "Northern Greece." In a broader sense, Greece anticipates that the hands of justice may someday reach for her and demand the return of the "stolen" booty.
(3) This is an issue of enormous importance to modern-day Greeks who are indoctrinated to believe that use of language equals ethnicity. Furthermore, most Greeks today equate their ethnic identity with the nation state. As a consequence, the use of a common language would denote a common nationality. However, the concept of a separate ethnicity within the nation state is completely lost upon them.
(B) TECHNICAL
The technical aspect of the problem requires a much deeper analysis. To better understand the Greek-revisionist claim, and to be able to properly address the issue, we require clarification of the ambiguous Greek position.
(1) Does the Greek claim about Macedonia suggest that ancient Macedonians were Greek because they sometimes 'used' the ancient Greek language?
(2) Is it being claimed that the ancient Macedonian language was Greek in both: written and spoken form?
(3) Do the modern citizens of Greece really believe that language is the primary identifying aspect, or component in discerning one's ethnicity?
(4) Was the language that the Ancient Macedonians spoke, in fact, Greek, or perhaps, a Greek dialect?
Before we tackle these questions, I would like to make some comparative observation of analogous situations where the instrument of communication, the spoken/written language of a given population/community or a country, does not by itself identify the ethnic/national character of the users in general.
First and foremost one must keep in mind that the language used by people does not by itself identify their ethnicity. We communicate in English, and we all come from different ethnic backgrounds. South American countries use the Spanish language, (Brazil excluded), and yet, not everyone is Spanish. History is replete with examples where people speak the same language yet identify themselves as ethnically different.
Professor Ernst Badian from Harvard University writes: "The idea that a nation is essentially defined by a language and that, conversely a common language means a common Nationhood - which is patently untrue for the greater part of human history and to a large extent even today". ("Studies in the History of Art Vol. 10: Macedonia and Greece in late classical and early Hellenistic Times".)
The implicit assumption is that ethnicity is determined and/or identified through a common language. This pattern of thinking continues further through the implication that ancient Macedonians spoke Greek, and therefore, they were Greeks. Consequently, everything that has been identified as "Macedonian"- is Greek, including, most importantly, the name itself.
Fourth century silver coins from the Persian province of 'Yehud' imitate "Greek issues for trading with the Greeks." There had already been Greek influence in Judea as early as the fifth century B.C., and many Jews especially the wealthy ones from the towns of Seleucia and Gadara, were prepared to accept a measure of Hellenism. Even in Judea "Greek was rapidly becoming the language of government and big business." Furthermore, the pro-Hasmonean books I and II Maccabees, though totally pro Jewish, were written in Greek. Jews in Alexandria used the Greek language extensively; "On the Kings of Judea" was written in Greek by a certain Demetrius.
Thracian silver coins and vessels from the fifth century B.C. bear Greek inscriptions, and yet, the Greek archeologists have never claimed this people as Greek. Late eighteenth century nobility in Russia and Germany used the French language as a mode of communication. Were they proclaiming their French nationality? Therefore, we must ask ourselves: Where do we draw the line? With what precision and certainty, do we ascribe Greek ethnic character to the Ancient Macedonians when we are confronted with such overwhelming analogous evidence?
Let us peruse the available literary evidence and see what those who know more than us have to say:
Eugene Borza: "The lesson is clear: the use of the Greek language as a form of written expression does not by itself identify the ethnicity of a culture". ("In the Shadow of Olympus -The Emergence of Macedon", p. 94.)
On p. 89 from the same source we find Borza discussing the arrival of the Macedonian tribes in the Balkans.
As the Macedonians settled the region following the expulsion of existing peoples, they probably introduced their own customs and language(s); there is no evidence that they adapted any existing language, even though they were now in contact with neighboring populations who spoke a variety of Greek and non-Greek tongues."
It is proper, and even compelling, to expect that the arriving Macedonians already had an existing oral language.
Ulrich Wilcken in his book 'Alexander the Great' notes on p. 22: "Linguistic science has at its disposal a very limited quantity of Macedonian words"
The main evidence for Macedonian existing as a separate language comes from a handful of late sources describing events in the train of Alexander the Great where the Macedonian tongue is specifically mentioned". ("In the Shadow of Olympus", p.92.)
The evidence suggests that Macedonian was distinct from the ordinary Attic Greek used as the language of the court and of diplomacy".
No matter how hard Modern Greeks try to prove otherwise, there is always more than one side to their story!
To be continued.
Many thanks to J.S.G. Gandeto for his contribution to this article.
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com
Print
Share
Email
