Greek Australian Advisory Council and the falsification of Ancient Macedonian history Part 20
Risto Stefov
December 14, 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:
THE DORIAN "CARD"
The Dorian Card - often misused by Greek ultranationalists.
One must exercise a great deal of caution when ascribing and /or grouping the Ancient Macedonians with the ancient Greeks. If it is politically convenient to some, to ascribe a Greek identity to the ancient Macedonians, then, they must also provide sound evidence to support such a claim.
"Since the archaeological evidence is scanty, this account of early Macedonian history is based on the most skeptical analysis of literary traditions" - writes E. Borza.
"This explanation for the connection between the Dorians and the Macedonians may be more ingenious than convincing, resting uncomfortably on myth and conjecture", Eugene Borza asserts, because we "lack sufficient evidence to substantiate it." The paucity of Iron Age sites makes it extremely difficult to establish any relevant origin of the early Macedonians' migration.
"There is no archaeological record of the Dorian movements, and the mythical arguments are largely conjectural, based on folk traditions about the Dorian home originally having been in northwest Greece". (Borza p.68. in The Shadow of Olympus).
"The theory of the Dorian invasion (based on Hdt. 9.26, followed by Thuc. 1.12) is largely an invention of nineteenth - century historiography, and is otherwise unsupported by either archaeological or linguistic evidence".
OTHERS ON MACEDONIA - JUDICIAL DECISION
Macedonia: Cultural Right or Cultural Appropriation?
By LARRY REIMER
The dispute between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, with respect to the use of the name Macedonia and the Vergina Sun symbol, serves to highlight lingering issues surrounding the status of culture in international law.
This paper represents, in part, a search for regimes with which to make cultural disputes legally intelligible. Setting aside the fruitless historical debates, the author characterizes Macedonia's position as a claim to cultural identity in international law and evaluates this claim within the framework of self-determination, human rights, and peoples' rights.
Conversely, Greece's position is characterized as a claim of cultural protection, and is considered under the guise of cultural property law, international intellectual property law and cultural "appropriation," as voiced by indigenous populations. In the end, the Macedonian argument appears almost intuitive, while Greece's claim of a proprietary-type interest in the name and symbol seems to be beyond the scope of both international law and workable international policy.
Le conflit contemporain entre la Grece et l'ancien Republique yougoslave de Macedoine en ce qui concerne l'emploi du nom Macedoine et le symbole du soleil Vergina, sert Á souligner des questions de droit internationale non rÊsolues Á propos du statut lÊgal de la culture. Ce travail reprÊsente, en partie, la recherche pour un rÊgime qui rend les conflits culturels intelligibles. Les dÊbats historiques inutiles de cÆtÊ, l'auteur caractÊrise la position de la MacÊdoine comme demande d'identitÊ culturelle et l'Êvalue sous les aspets de l'auto-determination, le droits humaines, et les droits des peuples. RÊciproquement, la position de la GrÉce est caractÊrisÊ comme demande de la protection culturelle, et est considÊrÊ dans le contexte de la droit des biens culturels, la droit internationale des biens intellectuels, et "l'appropriation culturelle", comme demande surtout exprimÊe par les peuples autochtones. En fin, la demande de la MacÊdoine paraÏt presque intuitive, bien que la demande de la GrÉce d'avoir un intËret materiel dans le nom et le symbole semble Ëtre hors de la portÊe de la loi internationale et contraire Á une politique internationale rÊalisable.
"What's in a name?" Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, 2.ii.43
The ongoing controversy between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia over the latter's wish to be recognized by a name which allegedly remains a Greek designation, stands as one of the world's more curious conflicts. After breaking off from a disintegrating Yugoslavia with aspirations to achieve full, independent statehood, the would-be Macedonia has experienced considerable difficulty in obtaining international recognition.
By objecting to a name which it says remains for the exclusive use of its own northernmost province and amounts to an aggressive claim over Greek territory and an unwarranted theft of Greek national and cultural heritage, Greece has lobbied internationally in the hopes of forcing its young neighbour to reconsider the name Macedonia, along with its flag and certain constitutional provisions.
While perhaps a strange and unnecessary political debate in the eyes of the international community, questions which surround the controversy are nonetheless rather interesting when seen through the lens of international law. Who, for example, owns the name Macedonia? This is a type of question with which international law, to date, has had great difficulty. Although concerns over forms of "cultural appropriation" have recently been voiced by members of the world's indigenous populations, the dispute over the name Macedonia has brought these concerns over the control of cultural intangibles to a new, interstate level.
The purpose of this comment is simply to attempt a preliminary exploration of legal structures which might be relevant in addressing the issue of collective interests in cultural intangibles, or "cultural intellectual property," on the international level.
The scope of peoples' cultural rights is unfortunately a manifestly unclear area of international law, and one is ever-conscious that in proposing legal categories which may accommodate these perceived needs one is perhaps running when one ought merely to walk.
As yet, international law provides few quick-fix remedies for disputes between peoples or states. Nevertheless, I press onward and suggest that rights to culture, broadly stated, are bound up with desires for expression of identity or notions of property and preservation of heritage.
Legal regimes such as those of self-determination, human rights and peoples' rights provide some justifications for a Macedonian nation seeking to express its cultural identity internationally. Correspondingly, existing cultural property law and international intellectual property law provide frameworks for evaluation of Greek national heritage claims. Admittedly, no current legal category presents immediate or complete answers.
The current controversy, ironically, has served in the case of Macedonia to question what was always assumed (i.e. the right to call one's collective self what one wished), and in the case of Greece, to ask new questions hitherto unknown to law (i.e. involving the exclusive control of history and heritage).
While the conflict may well be an odd interstate irritation requiring quick resolution, it is hoped that the ensuing debate might be put to constructive use by providing frameworks for and eventual clarification of the content of rights and duties relating to culture in international law.
The end.
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:
THE DORIAN "CARD"
The Dorian Card - often misused by Greek ultranationalists.
One must exercise a great deal of caution when ascribing and /or grouping the Ancient Macedonians with the ancient Greeks. If it is politically convenient to some, to ascribe a Greek identity to the ancient Macedonians, then, they must also provide sound evidence to support such a claim.
"Since the archaeological evidence is scanty, this account of early Macedonian history is based on the most skeptical analysis of literary traditions" - writes E. Borza.
"This explanation for the connection between the Dorians and the Macedonians may be more ingenious than convincing, resting uncomfortably on myth and conjecture", Eugene Borza asserts, because we "lack sufficient evidence to substantiate it." The paucity of Iron Age sites makes it extremely difficult to establish any relevant origin of the early Macedonians' migration.
"There is no archaeological record of the Dorian movements, and the mythical arguments are largely conjectural, based on folk traditions about the Dorian home originally having been in northwest Greece". (Borza p.68. in The Shadow of Olympus).
"The theory of the Dorian invasion (based on Hdt. 9.26, followed by Thuc. 1.12) is largely an invention of nineteenth - century historiography, and is otherwise unsupported by either archaeological or linguistic evidence".
OTHERS ON MACEDONIA - JUDICIAL DECISION
Macedonia: Cultural Right or Cultural Appropriation?
By LARRY REIMER
The dispute between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, with respect to the use of the name Macedonia and the Vergina Sun symbol, serves to highlight lingering issues surrounding the status of culture in international law.
This paper represents, in part, a search for regimes with which to make cultural disputes legally intelligible. Setting aside the fruitless historical debates, the author characterizes Macedonia's position as a claim to cultural identity in international law and evaluates this claim within the framework of self-determination, human rights, and peoples' rights.
Conversely, Greece's position is characterized as a claim of cultural protection, and is considered under the guise of cultural property law, international intellectual property law and cultural "appropriation," as voiced by indigenous populations. In the end, the Macedonian argument appears almost intuitive, while Greece's claim of a proprietary-type interest in the name and symbol seems to be beyond the scope of both international law and workable international policy.
Le conflit contemporain entre la Grece et l'ancien Republique yougoslave de Macedoine en ce qui concerne l'emploi du nom Macedoine et le symbole du soleil Vergina, sert Á souligner des questions de droit internationale non rÊsolues Á propos du statut lÊgal de la culture. Ce travail reprÊsente, en partie, la recherche pour un rÊgime qui rend les conflits culturels intelligibles. Les dÊbats historiques inutiles de cÆtÊ, l'auteur caractÊrise la position de la MacÊdoine comme demande d'identitÊ culturelle et l'Êvalue sous les aspets de l'auto-determination, le droits humaines, et les droits des peuples. RÊciproquement, la position de la GrÉce est caractÊrisÊ comme demande de la protection culturelle, et est considÊrÊ dans le contexte de la droit des biens culturels, la droit internationale des biens intellectuels, et "l'appropriation culturelle", comme demande surtout exprimÊe par les peuples autochtones. En fin, la demande de la MacÊdoine paraÏt presque intuitive, bien que la demande de la GrÉce d'avoir un intËret materiel dans le nom et le symbole semble Ëtre hors de la portÊe de la loi internationale et contraire Á une politique internationale rÊalisable.
"What's in a name?" Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, 2.ii.43
The ongoing controversy between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia over the latter's wish to be recognized by a name which allegedly remains a Greek designation, stands as one of the world's more curious conflicts. After breaking off from a disintegrating Yugoslavia with aspirations to achieve full, independent statehood, the would-be Macedonia has experienced considerable difficulty in obtaining international recognition.
By objecting to a name which it says remains for the exclusive use of its own northernmost province and amounts to an aggressive claim over Greek territory and an unwarranted theft of Greek national and cultural heritage, Greece has lobbied internationally in the hopes of forcing its young neighbour to reconsider the name Macedonia, along with its flag and certain constitutional provisions.
While perhaps a strange and unnecessary political debate in the eyes of the international community, questions which surround the controversy are nonetheless rather interesting when seen through the lens of international law. Who, for example, owns the name Macedonia? This is a type of question with which international law, to date, has had great difficulty. Although concerns over forms of "cultural appropriation" have recently been voiced by members of the world's indigenous populations, the dispute over the name Macedonia has brought these concerns over the control of cultural intangibles to a new, interstate level.
The purpose of this comment is simply to attempt a preliminary exploration of legal structures which might be relevant in addressing the issue of collective interests in cultural intangibles, or "cultural intellectual property," on the international level.
The scope of peoples' cultural rights is unfortunately a manifestly unclear area of international law, and one is ever-conscious that in proposing legal categories which may accommodate these perceived needs one is perhaps running when one ought merely to walk.
As yet, international law provides few quick-fix remedies for disputes between peoples or states. Nevertheless, I press onward and suggest that rights to culture, broadly stated, are bound up with desires for expression of identity or notions of property and preservation of heritage.
Legal regimes such as those of self-determination, human rights and peoples' rights provide some justifications for a Macedonian nation seeking to express its cultural identity internationally. Correspondingly, existing cultural property law and international intellectual property law provide frameworks for evaluation of Greek national heritage claims. Admittedly, no current legal category presents immediate or complete answers.
The current controversy, ironically, has served in the case of Macedonia to question what was always assumed (i.e. the right to call one's collective self what one wished), and in the case of Greece, to ask new questions hitherto unknown to law (i.e. involving the exclusive control of history and heritage).
While the conflict may well be an odd interstate irritation requiring quick resolution, it is hoped that the ensuing debate might be put to constructive use by providing frameworks for and eventual clarification of the content of rights and duties relating to culture in international law.
The end.
Many thanks to J.S.G. Gandeto for his contribution to this article.
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com