Inappropriate comments by a distinguished professor - rebuttal
Gandeto
March 10, 2009
This is my response to Stephen G. Miller (Professor Emeritus,
University of California, Berkeley)
The letter was sent to the Editor, Archaeology Magazine 36-36 33rd Street
Long Island City, NY 11106
U.S.A. (January 22, 2009)]
Rebuttal:
It has been a customary practice for academicians not to enter into a politically charged atmosphere and offer their professional opinion on subjects being contested. Consequently, scholars whose expertise carry variable weight elect to distance themselves from getting embroiled into polemics where misinterpretation and selective usage of text do justice to rational thought and can, and often do, bring unintended repercussions.
Indeed, reading Stephen Miller´s response to Archeology Magazine (newest issue for 2009) brought up, not only unexpected surprises but down right puzzlement and a strong measure of indignation to go along with it.
At first, I wasn´t quite ready to sort out his intended purpose but as I continued reading, deluge of irrepressible prickly stimuli began to wear me down. I wonder if the distinguished professor thinks that we are unaware of the ancient biographers writings (Hdt. 7.127.1, 128.1 and 131 or Thuc. 2.99) or perhaps he feels that we are largely insensitive to his remark "if the people in the modern republic centered at Skopje called themselves Paionians and claimed as theirs the land described by Thucydides".
Mr. Miller the modern republic centered at Skopje is called Macedonia and for your information the territory of the ancient Macedonia stretched from Mt. Olympus and River Peneios in the south to Bylazora and beyond in the north.
Your arrogant question
"but why, instead, would the modern people of ancient Paionia try to call themselves Macedonians and their land Macedonia?" is both indicative of your acquired prejudice and fairly diminished objectivity. [I´ll return to this "Paionia" topic a bit later]
Mr. Miller, we call ourselves Macedonians because that is what we are—Macedonians. Our great, great, grand fathers and their grandfathers before them left a burning love for and a connection to the land called Macedonia. We almost lost it… but somehow that little speck of light did not burn out, flickered precariously under the onslaught of the menacing political winds but, against enormous odds, survived nevertheless; it did not give in, persevered and became stronger. Now, it is almost a raging fire and I do not think that the Greeks, or anybody else for that matter, can stop it. And this is why your highly inappropriate comment about our name is so disgusting.
I will not tell you to mind your own business; what I would do instead is turn the tide your way and ask the same question: Why don´t you call yourself by a different name; say like Stephania Milner or Stan Miltonopoulos or such?
Instead of providing objective scholarly input, as your position and title would oblige, your letter bristles with heavy inaccuracies and unavoidable bias. Here, I am not thinking only about your insensitivities and lack of professional candor towards us, the Macedonians, but about your students whose intellectual potentials, instead of being enlarged and stimulated under your leadership, would be stifled and restricted.
The one-sided approach and position you have displayed in this letter to the Archeology Magazine are clearly counterproductive and lead to disillusionment and frustration. What will you do, I dare to ask, with students who may have read other scholars´ works whose views and positions taken markedly differ from yours? Would you allow them to form their own independent opinion on matters where the evidence in literature abounds with opposing views?
Your expressed convictions in the letter are clearly symptomatic of a deeper, simmering desire to interject your thoughts on a subject, place and a theme for which you possess inadequate adjudicating merits. Your venture into this political issue is neither valuable nor needed. It is extremely obvious that your views on this particular ongoing dispute between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece are beyond the scope of your expertise; while expressing your personal opinion is not limited nor in any way restricted, your attack on the Republic of Macedonia is, and that is neither welcomed nor acceptable.
A cursory search at your CV uncovered the truth beyond your assumed position. Perhaps, you owe gratitude to the state where you spent a good deal of your time researching and feel romantically connected with the place and the people you worked with. That is not unusual and in some instances, should be expected. But with all due respect sir, please leave Macedonia alone and pay your due respects at your own personal expense. The aroma emanating from the content of your letter clearly highlights your skewed and encrusted views of the Balkan politics and that is both hurtful and uncalled for.]
There are several sticking points in your letter that need illumination:
(a) You wrote:
"Certainly, as Thucydides (2. 99) tells us, the Macedonians had taken over ´a narrow strip of Paionia extending along the Axios river from the interior to Pella and the sea´. One might therefore understand if the people in the modern republic centered at Skopje called themselves Paionians and claimed as theirs the land described by Thucydides."
Of course, Thuc. 2 .99 is not to be confused with Thuc. ca 510 B.C., or Hdt. 5. 17-21, 7. 73. We take in consideration the expansion of Macedonian lands in Hdt. 7.110 and 114.1; Thuc. 2. 99.3 and 2. 99.6. We shall mention the fact that as the Macedonians expanded their territory many of the inhabitants were driven out like the Edoni (Hdt. 7. 110 and 114.1) and the Elmopes (Thuc. 2. 99.5) and yet many remained and became subjects of the Macedonian kings (Hdt. 7. 73; HM 1: 420-27; Ellis, PMI, 36).
Fact is that Macedonian expansion ebbed in and out with the fortunes of her kings; henceforth, we find Macedonian kings fortifying the defensive walls at Bylazora centuries later (King Philip V in 217 B.C. and King Perseus in 168). This fact alone speaks clearly of Macedonian domination of the ancient Paeonian lands that since 511-510 B.C., with the Persian arrival in the Balkans and their Macedonian vassalship, became de-facto Macedonian sphere of influence. Certainly, here we base our assertions on the strength of Hdt. 5. 17-21 with Megabazus´ deportation of Paeonians into Asia. Amyntas I, Alexander I´s father became Persian satrap (500 B.C.) and it is not impossible that he struck a deal with the Persians; land and water for the Persian army on their way to Greece for vacated Paeonian territory.
(b)
You find objectionable the title of the "Macedonian Institute for Strategic Research 16:9", and the verse taken from the New Testament 16:9 appears to irritates your patience. You wrote:
"A Macedonian man appears to the Apostle Paul begging him: ´Come over into Macedonia, and help us.´ But where did Paul go in Macedonia? Neapolis (Kavala), Philippi, Amphipolis, Apollonia, Thessaloniki, and Veroia (Acts 16:11-17:10) all of which are in the historic Macedonia, none in Paionia."
True indeed; the above mentioned cities were in historic Macedonia and not in Greece. The land on which these cities were founded was a Macedonian land populated largely by Macedonians.
You seem to be unaware that Greeks came to Macedonia for the first time only after 1912-13 with the Balkan Wars (Borza, 1999). Let me refresh your memory.
"In 1912 Salonica was captured by the Greek Army. From that moment on the port of Salonica began to lose its significance. According to legend, Salonica was founded by Cassander -brother-in-law of Alexander the Great – in 315 B.C. It appears however that the original population of this city consisted of Macedonians and other natives of pre-hellenic tribes, perhaps Macedonized. For two millennia Salonica wasn´t for one minute Greek." (OLD SALONICA By Elias Petropoulous KEDROS, Athens 1980, Greece.)
I am sure that you will have no objections if I assert that no army ever captures its own cities.]
There is a strong scholarly current that flows opposite to your stand and the number of scholars who "upgrade" their previously held positions is constantly on the rise. There are new winds indeed, stirring up the established status-quo about the ancients. Consider the following statement by Charles Bryant-Abraham, Ph. D., commenting on a book "He Glossa tes Makedonias, he Archaia Makedonike kai he Pseudonyme Glossa ton Skopion"
He states:
"One cannot, however, avoid suspicion of a hidden political agenda to head off any future South Slavic irredentism for the Macedonian-speaking hinterland of Thessalonica."
Perhaps, Mr. Miller you are unaware of the works published by professor Florin Curta from the University of Florida and his recent work on this subject:
The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500-700, Cambridge, UK 2001, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0 521 80202 4, and the works of Dr. Jozko Šavli, and his co-authors of Veneti, Prof. Matej Bor and Father Ivan Tomazic.]
Charles Bryant-Abraham further asks:
"Though thoroughly assimilated into the Greek culture and language through the education of his teacher, Aristotle, can it be that Alexander the Great himself emerged into world history from a Proto-(West) Slavic, i.e., Venetic, family background?"
A stream of new findings suggests that the Slavs migration from behind the Carpathian Mountains never occurred. There is no evidence of such a migration and it seems that a great number of scholars consider the Veneti to be the same people as the Slavs.]
(c)
As I continue reading your article you began to sound like many of the Greeks on the internet. You went even further than some of the die-hard bloggers who evoke images of an earlier era and try to resurrect and throw into the fray, once more, the old worn-out clichés about the communists´ desire to invade Greece, the supposed "birthplace" of the western democracy and thus your citation of the U.S. Secretary of State:
"Certainly there was no doubt of the underlying point of ´Macedonia´ in the mind of U.S. Secretary of State Edward Stettinius who on December 26, 1944 wrote:
"The Department [of State] has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. This government considers talk of Macedonian "nation", Macedonian "Fatherland", or Macedonian "national consciousness" to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece."
Fair enough! All I can tell you about this topic is a simple and a proven fact that governments come and go and with them come different brands of policies. Politicians, government officials as well as many influential people can be bought and sold on the open market. Money seems to corrupt almost everyone. There is scarcely any true objectivity left anywhere. Those were different tunes played under different rules. Sometimes the drummer changed the coat or the hat and sometimes both. Today´s friends may be your adversaries tomorrow. However, since you elected to deal with not a very recent time and have expressed consternation with the name "Macedonia", I will endeavor to refresh your political landscape with a more appropriate and a current statement:
A couple of months ago the Greek ambassador to Macedonia Dora Grosomanidou, speaking with the Financial Times´ reporter, said:
"Greece has to face the new reality, as Macedonia has been recognized under its constitutional name by more than half of the members of the United Nations, including three members of the UN Security Council: the United States, Russia, and China".
This, Mr. Miller, was "in the mind" of the acting Greek ambassador to Macedonia.
(d)
You seem surprised or "mystified" as you said with Mr. Brunwasser´s "apparent disdain" of the Greek claim of Alexander the Great of Macedon. You asked:
"what is there to claim?"
Mr. Miller, we are equally mystified by your surprise and apparent mystification. Indeed, we strongly feel, like so many of today´s scholars (and we have ancient sources to prove it—among which is Alexander the Great himself), that ancient Macedonians and their kings were simply Macedonians. No other conclusion, based on Greek and Latin sources from the antiquity, would suffice without corrupting the evidence.
I am certain that you will encounter strong opposition from your students (and peers alike) on this topic. Surely, your students have been presented with other than your position on this matter; haven´t they, Mr. Miller?
You as an objective presenter of ancient history would not have omitted the works of Peter Green, Ernst Badian, Eugene Borza, Briant Bosworth, F.W. Walbank, David G. Hogarth, Pierre Jouguet, Werner Jaeger and many others from your hall lectures and debates.
There is no denying that Alexander the Great enumerates Greece as one of the countries he had conquered; and by implication, there is no King who ever conquers his own country either.
Alexander speaking to his officers: "...But let me remind you: Through your courage and endurance you have gained possession of Ionia, the Hellespont, both Phrygias, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Phoenicia and Egypt; the Greek part of Libya is now yours, together with much of Arabia, lowland Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylon, and Susia;........." Arrian The Campaigns of Alexander [p.292]
Or this one:
Alexander continues to speak to his Macedonians and allies: "Come, then; add the rest of Asia to what you already possess - a small addition to the great sum of your conquests. What great or noble work could we ourselves have achieved had we thought it enough, living at ease in Macedon, merely to guard our homes, excepting no burden beyond checking the encroachment of the Thracians on our borders, or the Illyrians and Triballians, or perhaps such Greeks as might prove a menace to our comfort." [p.294] Arrian, Book 5.
I am curious to know how you, Mr. Miller, would defend your position against the weight of this passage.]
There is no denying that the Macedonian kings were seen as conquerors of Greece and that Greece was enslaved by the Macedonian Ares;
"O, Demosthenes, if your strength was only equal to your wisdom Greece would have not been enslaved by the Macedonian Ares."
Perhaps, a more eloquent example is Demosthenes´ epitaph for the fallen Hellenes at Chaeronea who were defending "the holy soil of Hellas" against the Macedonians.]
When Arrian speaks of racial rivalry between Macedonians and Greeks, he surely must have known the differences between these two ancient people.
(Book II - Battle of Issus) "Darius' Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water and save the day for their left wing, already in retreat, while the Macedonians, in their turn, with Alexander's triumph plain before their eyes, were determined to equal his success and not forfeit the proud title of invincible, hitherto universally bestowed upon them. The fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian." Arrian The Campaigns of Alexander p.119.
Evidence of this magnitude Mr. Miller, speaks volumes and no amount of propaganda can erase the obvious; Ancient Macedonians were just that, Macedonians and modern Greeks have no business hijacking their historical greatness. Literature abounds with incontrovertible evidence that even the best skilled Greek fabricators will experience difficulties changing the historical landscape. This is why your question "what is there to claim?" sounds so arrogantly hollow and clumsily out of place.
(e) You brought to the forefront as evidence Alexander I´s participation at the Olympic Games; you wrote:
"Alexander I, was certified as Greek at Olympia and, in the words of the father of history "I happen to know that [the forefathers of Alexander] are Greek" (Herodotus 5.22).
I was wondering if you, when presenting this episode to your students, told them that the participants at the Olympic Games refused to compete against the Macedonian king on the grounds that he wasn´t Greek. Second, I would hope that you would have explained to them how Alexander I succeeded in convincing the judges that he was indeed a Hellene. Certainly, he did not have on his person any birth certificate or any such documents to verify his story. However, he had plenty of timber that Athenians needed for their ship building. Is it possible then, that he, Alexander I, had whispered pleasant tunes to the ears of the judges? But the answer lies elsewhere, I am sure; the suspicion still hinges strongly on the fact that an everyday common Hellene would recognize that this Macedonian king did not belong in the same lot as them.
And even if Alexander I was admitted to the games and was "certified" as Greek, this certification was given to a "Temenid" and not to a Macedonian. Isocrates makes this quite explicit in his letter to Philip II where the Macedonian people are excluded from the Hellenes. "…found your kingdom among the people of non-kindred race" (Philip 127; Paneg. 140-43).
Furthermore, the Persian commander Mardonius selected Alexander I as an envoy to deal with the Greeks because he was already a "proxenos" and "eurgetes" at Athens (Hdt. 8.136, 140; Paus. 7.25.6).
Now, the appellation "eurgetes" or "proxenos" indicates that Alexander I was a friend, or benefactor to the Greeks; an appellation given to non-Greeks or foreigners.
Alexander I was later obliged to accompanied Xerxes in his campaign through Greece in 480/79 B.C. (Hdt. 7.22). It should also be noted that Amyntas I, the father of Alexander I was a Persian vassal.
These factors, as well as the fact that Archelaus was forced to invent his own Macedonian Olympic Games at Dium (Green, 1991), speak clearly of the Greek´s objections to include the ancient Macedonians into their fold. As far as Hdt. 5.22 is concerned, Borza, following the commentaries on these passages by Macan and How and Wells who recognized that the Olympic Games´ story was based on family legend, feels that it is a "weak proof of their Hellenic descent" (Borza, 1999).
Whence, we must conclude that Philip II was not Greek, nor his son, and certainly, not any other Macedonian king.
(f) You seem to have placed heavy emphasis on the language of the ancient Macedonians and certainly place the gist of your hope that since ancient Macedonians used koine for their empire they must be classed as Greeks.
First and foremost the language people speak does not ethnicity make. It is patently untrue to associate ethnicity with the language used. Second, Macedonians used "koine" throughout their empire because that was the language most people in antiquity had some connection with and could understand; it was the language of trade and communication. Alexander led a multitude of ethnicity in his army. As a prudent commander with a continental appeal, he used a language with which he can most successfully communicate with his troops. But let us not forget, and I sincerely hope that you, Mr. Miller, will enlighten your students with Alexander´s speech at Philotas´ trial when he, Alexander, specifically mentions his own Macedonian language and his own Macedonian ways.
(1)
A passage in Curtius(2) Hist. Alex. Magni Maced., IV, I11.4. explicitly illustrates that Macedonian language was not a Greek dialect but a separate language and unintelligible tongue to the Greeks. In this episode Alexander asks Philotas:
(a) ""... Macedones ... de te indicaturi sunt, quero an patrio sermone sis apud eos usurus," "... the Macedonians who will judge you, I ask if you will use the language of [our] fathers with them,"
Philotas responds:
(b) "Praeter Macedonas ... plerique adsunt, quos facilius quae dicam percep-turus arbitror, si eadem lingua fuero usus qua tu egisti, non ob aliud, credo quam ut oratio tua intellegi posset a pluribus,"
"[Above and] beyond the Macedonians ... there are many present whom, I feel, will more easily grasp the things I say if I use the same language you did, for no other reason, I believe, then that your speech might be understood by many."
This response by Philotas proves another excellent point that Alexander used koine throughout his campaign for no other reasons but to be understood by many.
This, Mr. Miller, should be a sufficiently clear answer to your question "what language was carried by Alexander with him on his expedition to the East?" I hope that your students will find sufficient courage to challenge your convictions.]
(c) Alexander:
"Ecquid videtis adeo etiam sermonis patrii Philotan toedere? Solus quippe fastidit eum discere. Sed dicat sane utcumque ei cordi est, dum memineritis aeque ilium a nostro more quam sermone abhorrere,"
"Have you ever seen Philotas reject the language of [our] fathers heretofore? Indeed, he alone is averse to learning it. Let him then say, however, it is in his heart, since you will remember that he is opposed to our custom[s] as well as our language."
We need not buttress the fact that Alexander spoke Macedonian language any further.
If Alexander´s language was Greek koine, there would have been no need for him to castigate Philotas with: … dum memineritis aeque ilium a nostro more quam sermone abhorrere,"
"The lesson is clear", writes Borza, the use of the Greek language as a form of written expression does not by itself identify the ethnicity of a culture." (Borza, 1990)
(2)
Let us also be mindful of the fact that "to speak in the Macedonian manner" meant nothing more and nothing less than the language of ordinary Macedonian soldiers and the language of the Macedonian king Alexander.
Eumenes, the Greek commander with Alexander, would not have sent Xennias, a Macedonian by birth and speech, to negotiate with the Macedonian commander Neoptolemus, if the Macedonian language was a "dialect of Greek" as some of you want to present it. Please do not deny your students the so-called "other side of the story". Let them decide by themselves. (Please see: Plut. Alex. 51.4; Curt. 6.9.35; Plut. Eum. 14.5; Athen. 3.122A and Plut. Ant. 27).
This is a clear example that the Macedonian phalanx had to be addressed in Macedonian language.
(3) The episode with Clitus (the Black) when Alexander called for his guards in Macedonian, unambiguously illustrates what we have been saying for a long time, that Alexander spoke Macedonian language with his Macedonians and used "koine" with the rest of the troops. Greeks have attempted (I may add, without any success) to dilute the episode as a non-factor describing the Macedonian language used by Alexander himself as some form of a dialect, inventing all sorts of interpretations in order to diminish and blur its significance as evidence.
Badian (Studies in the History of Art Vol. 10) states: "He used the only language in which his guards could be addressed", and Brian Bosworth adds: "there is no need for further elaboration."
(4) You wrote: "Why was the New Testament written in Greek rather than Slavic?"
Perhaps, it was written in Greek by the same reason that the five volumes of Jewish history were written in Greek by Jason of Cyrene.
Note: The only affected party in this expose, in my opinion, would be your future students whose ambitions and expectations instead of being challenged and stimulated, unfortunately, would be exposed to such restrictive and ineffective methods of teaching. I doubt your students will ever write term papers on the following topics:
1. Why did Alexander dismiss the Greeks from his Asian campaign? 2. Why is the Lamian War known as Hellenic War? 3. The significance of Polibius´ XViii, 46,5. and 4. Why did Alexander burn his fleet?]
It is safe to assume that educators with resolute analytical powers teach; the rest, with a Hellenic brush, lump things together.
Consequently Mr. Miller, and in lieu of so many incontrovertible documents in support of the fact that Ancient Macedonians were just that—Macedonians, we must strongly object to your assertions and take your insults in stride. The Archeology Magazine and Archeological Institute of America will continue to thrive with or without your biased and condescending invectives about the Macedonian people in the Republic of Macedonia and the rest of the Macedonians, here in the Diaspora.
Until next time…
Many thanks to Mr. Ilija Bitovski for his contribution to this post.
University of California, Berkeley)
The letter was sent to the Editor, Archaeology Magazine 36-36 33rd Street
Long Island City, NY 11106
U.S.A. (January 22, 2009)]
Rebuttal:
It has been a customary practice for academicians not to enter into a politically charged atmosphere and offer their professional opinion on subjects being contested. Consequently, scholars whose expertise carry variable weight elect to distance themselves from getting embroiled into polemics where misinterpretation and selective usage of text do justice to rational thought and can, and often do, bring unintended repercussions.
Indeed, reading Stephen Miller´s response to Archeology Magazine (newest issue for 2009) brought up, not only unexpected surprises but down right puzzlement and a strong measure of indignation to go along with it.
At first, I wasn´t quite ready to sort out his intended purpose but as I continued reading, deluge of irrepressible prickly stimuli began to wear me down. I wonder if the distinguished professor thinks that we are unaware of the ancient biographers writings (Hdt. 7.127.1, 128.1 and 131 or Thuc. 2.99) or perhaps he feels that we are largely insensitive to his remark "if the people in the modern republic centered at Skopje called themselves Paionians and claimed as theirs the land described by Thucydides".
Mr. Miller the modern republic centered at Skopje is called Macedonia and for your information the territory of the ancient Macedonia stretched from Mt. Olympus and River Peneios in the south to Bylazora and beyond in the north.
Your arrogant question
"but why, instead, would the modern people of ancient Paionia try to call themselves Macedonians and their land Macedonia?" is both indicative of your acquired prejudice and fairly diminished objectivity. [I´ll return to this "Paionia" topic a bit later]
Mr. Miller, we call ourselves Macedonians because that is what we are—Macedonians. Our great, great, grand fathers and their grandfathers before them left a burning love for and a connection to the land called Macedonia. We almost lost it… but somehow that little speck of light did not burn out, flickered precariously under the onslaught of the menacing political winds but, against enormous odds, survived nevertheless; it did not give in, persevered and became stronger. Now, it is almost a raging fire and I do not think that the Greeks, or anybody else for that matter, can stop it. And this is why your highly inappropriate comment about our name is so disgusting.
I will not tell you to mind your own business; what I would do instead is turn the tide your way and ask the same question: Why don´t you call yourself by a different name; say like Stephania Milner or Stan Miltonopoulos or such?
Instead of providing objective scholarly input, as your position and title would oblige, your letter bristles with heavy inaccuracies and unavoidable bias. Here, I am not thinking only about your insensitivities and lack of professional candor towards us, the Macedonians, but about your students whose intellectual potentials, instead of being enlarged and stimulated under your leadership, would be stifled and restricted.
The one-sided approach and position you have displayed in this letter to the Archeology Magazine are clearly counterproductive and lead to disillusionment and frustration. What will you do, I dare to ask, with students who may have read other scholars´ works whose views and positions taken markedly differ from yours? Would you allow them to form their own independent opinion on matters where the evidence in literature abounds with opposing views?
Your expressed convictions in the letter are clearly symptomatic of a deeper, simmering desire to interject your thoughts on a subject, place and a theme for which you possess inadequate adjudicating merits. Your venture into this political issue is neither valuable nor needed. It is extremely obvious that your views on this particular ongoing dispute between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece are beyond the scope of your expertise; while expressing your personal opinion is not limited nor in any way restricted, your attack on the Republic of Macedonia is, and that is neither welcomed nor acceptable.
A cursory search at your CV uncovered the truth beyond your assumed position. Perhaps, you owe gratitude to the state where you spent a good deal of your time researching and feel romantically connected with the place and the people you worked with. That is not unusual and in some instances, should be expected. But with all due respect sir, please leave Macedonia alone and pay your due respects at your own personal expense. The aroma emanating from the content of your letter clearly highlights your skewed and encrusted views of the Balkan politics and that is both hurtful and uncalled for.]
There are several sticking points in your letter that need illumination:
(a) You wrote:
"Certainly, as Thucydides (2. 99) tells us, the Macedonians had taken over ´a narrow strip of Paionia extending along the Axios river from the interior to Pella and the sea´. One might therefore understand if the people in the modern republic centered at Skopje called themselves Paionians and claimed as theirs the land described by Thucydides."
Of course, Thuc. 2 .99 is not to be confused with Thuc. ca 510 B.C., or Hdt. 5. 17-21, 7. 73. We take in consideration the expansion of Macedonian lands in Hdt. 7.110 and 114.1; Thuc. 2. 99.3 and 2. 99.6. We shall mention the fact that as the Macedonians expanded their territory many of the inhabitants were driven out like the Edoni (Hdt. 7. 110 and 114.1) and the Elmopes (Thuc. 2. 99.5) and yet many remained and became subjects of the Macedonian kings (Hdt. 7. 73; HM 1: 420-27; Ellis, PMI, 36).
Fact is that Macedonian expansion ebbed in and out with the fortunes of her kings; henceforth, we find Macedonian kings fortifying the defensive walls at Bylazora centuries later (King Philip V in 217 B.C. and King Perseus in 168). This fact alone speaks clearly of Macedonian domination of the ancient Paeonian lands that since 511-510 B.C., with the Persian arrival in the Balkans and their Macedonian vassalship, became de-facto Macedonian sphere of influence. Certainly, here we base our assertions on the strength of Hdt. 5. 17-21 with Megabazus´ deportation of Paeonians into Asia. Amyntas I, Alexander I´s father became Persian satrap (500 B.C.) and it is not impossible that he struck a deal with the Persians; land and water for the Persian army on their way to Greece for vacated Paeonian territory.
(b)
You find objectionable the title of the "Macedonian Institute for Strategic Research 16:9", and the verse taken from the New Testament 16:9 appears to irritates your patience. You wrote:
"A Macedonian man appears to the Apostle Paul begging him: ´Come over into Macedonia, and help us.´ But where did Paul go in Macedonia? Neapolis (Kavala), Philippi, Amphipolis, Apollonia, Thessaloniki, and Veroia (Acts 16:11-17:10) all of which are in the historic Macedonia, none in Paionia."
True indeed; the above mentioned cities were in historic Macedonia and not in Greece. The land on which these cities were founded was a Macedonian land populated largely by Macedonians.
You seem to be unaware that Greeks came to Macedonia for the first time only after 1912-13 with the Balkan Wars (Borza, 1999). Let me refresh your memory.
"In 1912 Salonica was captured by the Greek Army. From that moment on the port of Salonica began to lose its significance. According to legend, Salonica was founded by Cassander -brother-in-law of Alexander the Great – in 315 B.C. It appears however that the original population of this city consisted of Macedonians and other natives of pre-hellenic tribes, perhaps Macedonized. For two millennia Salonica wasn´t for one minute Greek." (OLD SALONICA By Elias Petropoulous KEDROS, Athens 1980, Greece.)
I am sure that you will have no objections if I assert that no army ever captures its own cities.]
There is a strong scholarly current that flows opposite to your stand and the number of scholars who "upgrade" their previously held positions is constantly on the rise. There are new winds indeed, stirring up the established status-quo about the ancients. Consider the following statement by Charles Bryant-Abraham, Ph. D., commenting on a book "He Glossa tes Makedonias, he Archaia Makedonike kai he Pseudonyme Glossa ton Skopion"
He states:
"One cannot, however, avoid suspicion of a hidden political agenda to head off any future South Slavic irredentism for the Macedonian-speaking hinterland of Thessalonica."
Perhaps, Mr. Miller you are unaware of the works published by professor Florin Curta from the University of Florida and his recent work on this subject:
The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500-700, Cambridge, UK 2001, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0 521 80202 4, and the works of Dr. Jozko Šavli, and his co-authors of Veneti, Prof. Matej Bor and Father Ivan Tomazic.]
Charles Bryant-Abraham further asks:
"Though thoroughly assimilated into the Greek culture and language through the education of his teacher, Aristotle, can it be that Alexander the Great himself emerged into world history from a Proto-(West) Slavic, i.e., Venetic, family background?"
A stream of new findings suggests that the Slavs migration from behind the Carpathian Mountains never occurred. There is no evidence of such a migration and it seems that a great number of scholars consider the Veneti to be the same people as the Slavs.]
(c)
As I continue reading your article you began to sound like many of the Greeks on the internet. You went even further than some of the die-hard bloggers who evoke images of an earlier era and try to resurrect and throw into the fray, once more, the old worn-out clichés about the communists´ desire to invade Greece, the supposed "birthplace" of the western democracy and thus your citation of the U.S. Secretary of State:
"Certainly there was no doubt of the underlying point of ´Macedonia´ in the mind of U.S. Secretary of State Edward Stettinius who on December 26, 1944 wrote:
"The Department [of State] has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. This government considers talk of Macedonian "nation", Macedonian "Fatherland", or Macedonian "national consciousness" to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece."
Fair enough! All I can tell you about this topic is a simple and a proven fact that governments come and go and with them come different brands of policies. Politicians, government officials as well as many influential people can be bought and sold on the open market. Money seems to corrupt almost everyone. There is scarcely any true objectivity left anywhere. Those were different tunes played under different rules. Sometimes the drummer changed the coat or the hat and sometimes both. Today´s friends may be your adversaries tomorrow. However, since you elected to deal with not a very recent time and have expressed consternation with the name "Macedonia", I will endeavor to refresh your political landscape with a more appropriate and a current statement:
A couple of months ago the Greek ambassador to Macedonia Dora Grosomanidou, speaking with the Financial Times´ reporter, said:
"Greece has to face the new reality, as Macedonia has been recognized under its constitutional name by more than half of the members of the United Nations, including three members of the UN Security Council: the United States, Russia, and China".
This, Mr. Miller, was "in the mind" of the acting Greek ambassador to Macedonia.
(d)
You seem surprised or "mystified" as you said with Mr. Brunwasser´s "apparent disdain" of the Greek claim of Alexander the Great of Macedon. You asked:
"what is there to claim?"
Mr. Miller, we are equally mystified by your surprise and apparent mystification. Indeed, we strongly feel, like so many of today´s scholars (and we have ancient sources to prove it—among which is Alexander the Great himself), that ancient Macedonians and their kings were simply Macedonians. No other conclusion, based on Greek and Latin sources from the antiquity, would suffice without corrupting the evidence.
I am certain that you will encounter strong opposition from your students (and peers alike) on this topic. Surely, your students have been presented with other than your position on this matter; haven´t they, Mr. Miller?
You as an objective presenter of ancient history would not have omitted the works of Peter Green, Ernst Badian, Eugene Borza, Briant Bosworth, F.W. Walbank, David G. Hogarth, Pierre Jouguet, Werner Jaeger and many others from your hall lectures and debates.
There is no denying that Alexander the Great enumerates Greece as one of the countries he had conquered; and by implication, there is no King who ever conquers his own country either.
Alexander speaking to his officers: "...But let me remind you: Through your courage and endurance you have gained possession of Ionia, the Hellespont, both Phrygias, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Phoenicia and Egypt; the Greek part of Libya is now yours, together with much of Arabia, lowland Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylon, and Susia;........." Arrian The Campaigns of Alexander [p.292]
Or this one:
Alexander continues to speak to his Macedonians and allies: "Come, then; add the rest of Asia to what you already possess - a small addition to the great sum of your conquests. What great or noble work could we ourselves have achieved had we thought it enough, living at ease in Macedon, merely to guard our homes, excepting no burden beyond checking the encroachment of the Thracians on our borders, or the Illyrians and Triballians, or perhaps such Greeks as might prove a menace to our comfort." [p.294] Arrian, Book 5.
I am curious to know how you, Mr. Miller, would defend your position against the weight of this passage.]
There is no denying that the Macedonian kings were seen as conquerors of Greece and that Greece was enslaved by the Macedonian Ares;
"O, Demosthenes, if your strength was only equal to your wisdom Greece would have not been enslaved by the Macedonian Ares."
Perhaps, a more eloquent example is Demosthenes´ epitaph for the fallen Hellenes at Chaeronea who were defending "the holy soil of Hellas" against the Macedonians.]
When Arrian speaks of racial rivalry between Macedonians and Greeks, he surely must have known the differences between these two ancient people.
(Book II - Battle of Issus) "Darius' Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water and save the day for their left wing, already in retreat, while the Macedonians, in their turn, with Alexander's triumph plain before their eyes, were determined to equal his success and not forfeit the proud title of invincible, hitherto universally bestowed upon them. The fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian." Arrian The Campaigns of Alexander p.119.
Evidence of this magnitude Mr. Miller, speaks volumes and no amount of propaganda can erase the obvious; Ancient Macedonians were just that, Macedonians and modern Greeks have no business hijacking their historical greatness. Literature abounds with incontrovertible evidence that even the best skilled Greek fabricators will experience difficulties changing the historical landscape. This is why your question "what is there to claim?" sounds so arrogantly hollow and clumsily out of place.
(e) You brought to the forefront as evidence Alexander I´s participation at the Olympic Games; you wrote:
"Alexander I, was certified as Greek at Olympia and, in the words of the father of history "I happen to know that [the forefathers of Alexander] are Greek" (Herodotus 5.22).
I was wondering if you, when presenting this episode to your students, told them that the participants at the Olympic Games refused to compete against the Macedonian king on the grounds that he wasn´t Greek. Second, I would hope that you would have explained to them how Alexander I succeeded in convincing the judges that he was indeed a Hellene. Certainly, he did not have on his person any birth certificate or any such documents to verify his story. However, he had plenty of timber that Athenians needed for their ship building. Is it possible then, that he, Alexander I, had whispered pleasant tunes to the ears of the judges? But the answer lies elsewhere, I am sure; the suspicion still hinges strongly on the fact that an everyday common Hellene would recognize that this Macedonian king did not belong in the same lot as them.
And even if Alexander I was admitted to the games and was "certified" as Greek, this certification was given to a "Temenid" and not to a Macedonian. Isocrates makes this quite explicit in his letter to Philip II where the Macedonian people are excluded from the Hellenes. "…found your kingdom among the people of non-kindred race" (Philip 127; Paneg. 140-43).
Furthermore, the Persian commander Mardonius selected Alexander I as an envoy to deal with the Greeks because he was already a "proxenos" and "eurgetes" at Athens (Hdt. 8.136, 140; Paus. 7.25.6).
Now, the appellation "eurgetes" or "proxenos" indicates that Alexander I was a friend, or benefactor to the Greeks; an appellation given to non-Greeks or foreigners.
Alexander I was later obliged to accompanied Xerxes in his campaign through Greece in 480/79 B.C. (Hdt. 7.22). It should also be noted that Amyntas I, the father of Alexander I was a Persian vassal.
These factors, as well as the fact that Archelaus was forced to invent his own Macedonian Olympic Games at Dium (Green, 1991), speak clearly of the Greek´s objections to include the ancient Macedonians into their fold. As far as Hdt. 5.22 is concerned, Borza, following the commentaries on these passages by Macan and How and Wells who recognized that the Olympic Games´ story was based on family legend, feels that it is a "weak proof of their Hellenic descent" (Borza, 1999).
Whence, we must conclude that Philip II was not Greek, nor his son, and certainly, not any other Macedonian king.
(f) You seem to have placed heavy emphasis on the language of the ancient Macedonians and certainly place the gist of your hope that since ancient Macedonians used koine for their empire they must be classed as Greeks.
First and foremost the language people speak does not ethnicity make. It is patently untrue to associate ethnicity with the language used. Second, Macedonians used "koine" throughout their empire because that was the language most people in antiquity had some connection with and could understand; it was the language of trade and communication. Alexander led a multitude of ethnicity in his army. As a prudent commander with a continental appeal, he used a language with which he can most successfully communicate with his troops. But let us not forget, and I sincerely hope that you, Mr. Miller, will enlighten your students with Alexander´s speech at Philotas´ trial when he, Alexander, specifically mentions his own Macedonian language and his own Macedonian ways.
(1)
A passage in Curtius(2) Hist. Alex. Magni Maced., IV, I11.4. explicitly illustrates that Macedonian language was not a Greek dialect but a separate language and unintelligible tongue to the Greeks. In this episode Alexander asks Philotas:
(a) ""... Macedones ... de te indicaturi sunt, quero an patrio sermone sis apud eos usurus," "... the Macedonians who will judge you, I ask if you will use the language of [our] fathers with them,"
Philotas responds:
(b) "Praeter Macedonas ... plerique adsunt, quos facilius quae dicam percep-turus arbitror, si eadem lingua fuero usus qua tu egisti, non ob aliud, credo quam ut oratio tua intellegi posset a pluribus,"
"[Above and] beyond the Macedonians ... there are many present whom, I feel, will more easily grasp the things I say if I use the same language you did, for no other reason, I believe, then that your speech might be understood by many."
This response by Philotas proves another excellent point that Alexander used koine throughout his campaign for no other reasons but to be understood by many.
This, Mr. Miller, should be a sufficiently clear answer to your question "what language was carried by Alexander with him on his expedition to the East?" I hope that your students will find sufficient courage to challenge your convictions.]
(c) Alexander:
"Ecquid videtis adeo etiam sermonis patrii Philotan toedere? Solus quippe fastidit eum discere. Sed dicat sane utcumque ei cordi est, dum memineritis aeque ilium a nostro more quam sermone abhorrere,"
"Have you ever seen Philotas reject the language of [our] fathers heretofore? Indeed, he alone is averse to learning it. Let him then say, however, it is in his heart, since you will remember that he is opposed to our custom[s] as well as our language."
We need not buttress the fact that Alexander spoke Macedonian language any further.
If Alexander´s language was Greek koine, there would have been no need for him to castigate Philotas with: … dum memineritis aeque ilium a nostro more quam sermone abhorrere,"
"The lesson is clear", writes Borza, the use of the Greek language as a form of written expression does not by itself identify the ethnicity of a culture." (Borza, 1990)
(2)
Let us also be mindful of the fact that "to speak in the Macedonian manner" meant nothing more and nothing less than the language of ordinary Macedonian soldiers and the language of the Macedonian king Alexander.
Eumenes, the Greek commander with Alexander, would not have sent Xennias, a Macedonian by birth and speech, to negotiate with the Macedonian commander Neoptolemus, if the Macedonian language was a "dialect of Greek" as some of you want to present it. Please do not deny your students the so-called "other side of the story". Let them decide by themselves. (Please see: Plut. Alex. 51.4; Curt. 6.9.35; Plut. Eum. 14.5; Athen. 3.122A and Plut. Ant. 27).
This is a clear example that the Macedonian phalanx had to be addressed in Macedonian language.
(3) The episode with Clitus (the Black) when Alexander called for his guards in Macedonian, unambiguously illustrates what we have been saying for a long time, that Alexander spoke Macedonian language with his Macedonians and used "koine" with the rest of the troops. Greeks have attempted (I may add, without any success) to dilute the episode as a non-factor describing the Macedonian language used by Alexander himself as some form of a dialect, inventing all sorts of interpretations in order to diminish and blur its significance as evidence.
Badian (Studies in the History of Art Vol. 10) states: "He used the only language in which his guards could be addressed", and Brian Bosworth adds: "there is no need for further elaboration."
(4) You wrote: "Why was the New Testament written in Greek rather than Slavic?"
Perhaps, it was written in Greek by the same reason that the five volumes of Jewish history were written in Greek by Jason of Cyrene.
Note: The only affected party in this expose, in my opinion, would be your future students whose ambitions and expectations instead of being challenged and stimulated, unfortunately, would be exposed to such restrictive and ineffective methods of teaching. I doubt your students will ever write term papers on the following topics:
1. Why did Alexander dismiss the Greeks from his Asian campaign? 2. Why is the Lamian War known as Hellenic War? 3. The significance of Polibius´ XViii, 46,5. and 4. Why did Alexander burn his fleet?]
It is safe to assume that educators with resolute analytical powers teach; the rest, with a Hellenic brush, lump things together.
Consequently Mr. Miller, and in lieu of so many incontrovertible documents in support of the fact that Ancient Macedonians were just that—Macedonians, we must strongly object to your assertions and take your insults in stride. The Archeology Magazine and Archeological Institute of America will continue to thrive with or without your biased and condescending invectives about the Macedonian people in the Republic of Macedonia and the rest of the Macedonians, here in the Diaspora.
Until next time…
Many thanks to Mr. Ilija Bitovski for his contribution to this post.
Print
Email
