Talk:Ancient Macedonians/Archive 2

Macedonian's competed at Olympics as self-identifying Greeks
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.


 * e.g.

"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)


 * Someone undid my edit twice suggesting the second time "this was still a claim about his own family, not about the whole nation". Nowhere did I suggest anything in my edit about whole nation. I simply made some minor edits to reduce undue emphasis. Macedonian's competing in the ancient Olympics (as self-identifying Greeks) is hardly a "con" argument against ancient Macedonians being Greeks. At the moment, the section in question is entirely focused on one passage by Herodotus questioning Alexander-meanwhile it glosses over centuries of Macedonian participation in the ancient Olympics as self-identifying Greeks? (e.g. some other notable Macedonians that competed in the Olympics as self-identifying Greeks-including several kings of Macedonia-names that used to be part of the section but were erased)


 * 480 Boxing Theagenes Thasos, 472 Boys' Boxing Tellon Orestheia. 408 Tethrippon Archelaos (King), 380 Pankration Xenophon Aigai, 356 Horse Race Philip II (King), 320 Stadion Damasias Amphipolis, 304 Tethrippon Lampos Philippoi, 292 Stadion Antigonos, 268 Foals' Tethrippon Belestichos, 268 Stadion Seleukos, 264 Synoris Belestichos


 * Alexander was ultimately accepted as Greek (by other Greeks) to compete in events and called himself Greek (if primary sources are to be believed this is fact not modern nationalist sophistry). Putting aside all discussion of what the term "Greek" actually means (or various definitions of ethnicity for that matter), the fact that Alexander was originally challenged is no more proof that Macedonians weren't self-identifying Greeks any more than Obama being challenged by birthers should be spun as "proof" he isn't a self-identifying American. (imagine in 2000 years people claiming Obama wasn't a self-identifying American given similar reasoning)


 * In my opinion, it is far fetched that all those Macedonians would have been allowed to compete by Athenians, Corinthians, Spartans, et al in the Olympics as non-Greeks (since it would have been viewed as sacrilegious to their Gods). It would also have been a slap in their face to the subjects of Macedonian kings that their own leaders would claim to be part of some other ethnic group and compete at foreign events (consider if George Bush competed in a Mexican only sporting events or at the Olympics as a self-identifying Mexican under a Mexican flag to get a whiff of how extreme an assertion that would be)


 * As far as I know even the minority of scholars that argue Macedonians weren't originally ethnically Greek (i.e. they are are defining their ethnicity beyond simple self-identification)-mostly agree Macedonians were self-identifying Greeks by the Hellenistic period.

e.g


 * "We have now become accustomed to regarding Macedonians as northern Greeks and, in extreme cases, to hearing Alexander's conquests described as in essence Greek conquests. The former certainty became true in Greek consciousness in the course of the Hellenistic age; the latter may be argued to be true`ex post facto'." (Greeks and Macedonians -Studies in the History of Art - Badian)


 * Frankly, the whole section (and the current ancient Macedonian articles) seem to be undergoing a transformation lately-an over emphasis of passages that are seemingly intended to create distance between Macedonians and the rest of the Greek world (the above being an example). Unless there has been some major archeological discovery lately that prove ancient Macedonians weren't Greeks this strikes me as modern politics at work rather than an objective reporting of history. If on the one side some suggest the right to self-identification an absolute-doesn't it make sense that same reasoning should apply to ancient Macedonians that competed as self-identifying ethnic Greeks in the Olympics? Which way is it going to be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.140.227 (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

One sided introduction
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)
 * That was indeed a strange edit by Dbachmann! I edited it as before. I agree with you, the "They became mostly Hellenized by the 4th century BC..." part is misleading and is also opposite to the sources provided, it needs to be changed. A Macedonian (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The part about them becoming Hellenized is definitely problematic, as it automatically implies they were not Hellenic (only non-Hellenic peoples could become Hellenized). I think it's best we leave it at "They came to belong to the Koine speaking Greek peoples by the 4th century BC" or however it is phrased.  Athenean (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I shaped up the lead, hopefully in the spirit it was initially written. I was careful with the wording regarding their language and kept the "Greek tribe" at the start. Unfortunately, I do not have much free time this summer, but I would advise anyone interested or involved to stop occupying himself with the lead and start adding material regarding the people. Where is the information about the Macedonian tribes? Information about their archaic political system? Their judicial system? Their distinct traditions? The numerous personalities of Macedonian origin (military leaders, writers, artists)? It seems the whole article is revolving only about their ethnicity and this is really a shame, for it could be an otherwise very informative and valuable article, distinct from Macedon. GK (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So, people complain that the lead shouldn't "look totally definite" in presenting only one position (evidently, the one you don't like), but then you change it to a version that does just that, and in the most unambiguous way possible – mysteriously, now the lead presents the position that you do like, without any hint at a problem? Man, you all know perfectly well that there is no consensus about this in scholarship, so just stop it. "A nation of classical antiquity", in this context, is a far superior version. Sthenel's complaints above are unfounded: "nation", in this context, of course doesn't represent the modern concept of the ethnic nation-state. It just signifies that it was a group with a certain political and cultural identity; it says nothing about the degree of affinity to other surrounding groups. As such it is just the neutral wording we need here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * FP, I clearly stated that I shaped up the EXISTING lead, which was a mess. I kept all the "debatable" parts to be debated as was the case before my involvement. I challenge you to compare the before and after of my editing and tell me where I "changed" it to a version that presents only one opinion. In contrast, I even removed some direct allegations, but I guess that your crusading makes you see nationalist enemies all around you... Did you even look at my changes or did you just stick to the "Greek tribe" part, which of course you have been debating for so long? GK (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hedging is all well and good, except that neither the Greek POV version, nor the current version, actually do any hedging. The current version makes no mention at all of the Macedonians' ethnic and linguistic affiliation.  I think a mention of said affiliations, properly hedged, is not inappropriate for the lead of this article.  I propose modifying the final sentence of the lead to:  "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."  Athenean (talk) 03:50, 16 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)


 * Well, this very article includes 'evidence' of Greek pottery from the 13 th century in Macedonia, which has been sythesized by an editor as undoutable 'proof' of the presence of Greek-speakers as early as then. I am merely highlighting that such conclusion is a fallacy obviously constructed on the basis of an editors POV, in turn, based on a dubious source. So it is not me that's focussing on the 13th century.


 * Secondly, ALL historians do not agree on anything. The broad concensus of scholars is known to me, however, this gets presented in this article as bible without further eloboration as to the difficulties which historians., archaeologists and linguists really face when investigating peoples from prehistoric times.

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)

Athenean's latest edits
About the wording ("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)


 * Fair enough. How about: "Their lingustic....known; however, it is accepted...."?  Athenean (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Same thing: "however" implies the same link as "though" does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have any problem removing the "however" and splitting into two sentences. Athenean (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Vergina (aigai) - Ancient macedonian names
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)


 * The only problem I see with this is that trying to label ancient peoples into discreet sub-categories is based on a false logic that people in 300 BC were nations in the same sense that Greeks, or Iranians, or Germans are nations today, ie with definable borders, standard language, and a politically established culture. Clearly, they did not back then. Whilst Macedonian contains 1/3 Greek words, 1.3 are entirely non-Greek, whilst others are possibly related to Greek. There is then the differences in societal organization, a more archaic form or kinship, etc, which more approximated the Illyrian type tribes to north of GReece propper. Then there is clear archaeological documentation that Macedonia has always been a cultural cross roads, receiving influences from all corners of the Balkans and beyond.

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)

Lead
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)


 * No, sorry. "Generally accepted" has a very clear, very strong meaning: it entails that any opposing viewpoints are negligible. Which, in this case, they clearly are not. About the other points: "many" is just that, "many", relative (obviously) to the number of competent authors who have commented on this issue. Which is just right here. And in my wording the contrast between "many" and "some" already concedes a numeric preponderance (which, incidentally, I'm not even certain about, but I'll let that pass.) And "authors", in academic parlance, means exactly what is meant here: people who have contributed to the pertinent academic discourse on this matter. I don't think people would misunderstand it as "novelists", "poets" or whatever in this context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. "It is generally accepted" does not entail any overwhelming meaning. Nor does it imply that other opinions are "negligible". "It is universally accepted" does mean all the things you say. Exactly as "Tom is a generally quiet boy" does not mean that Tom is always quiet... In this case, "generally" is the correct word. It is not strong and it gives an amount of weight appropriate to the situation, which is that the (great) majority of scholars and scholarly institutions recognize that Ancient Macedonians were indeed a clear part of the Greek ethnos. Anyways, I don't have a problem with using another expression as long as it makes it clear that it is the majority of the scholarly world that accepts opinion A. "Many" does not contrast with "some" as you think it does. "Many authors maintain that the Earth is hollow" is a correct sentence as well. There are at least 30 such authors who have maintained such theories. "Many" allows for other opinions to have a bigger support. "Authors" are also authors of historical books and contributors to historical magazines who have no proof whatsoever of their expertise on the matter.

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)


 * I agree with Hxseek that the question is not so clear cut. The book sources specialized in language are very reserved in favoring any of the hypothesis. They just leave all the options opened because there are no sufficient data. None denies that in 4th century koine greek was in use, but if another non-greek language was in use before ..... do the math yourselves. Aigest (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Personal opinions are personal. The sentence presents both theories with respect and due weight. What you claim Aigest is clearly put : "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." What Hexseek is suggesting is out of the scope of the sentence, since what no one doubts here is that "Most scholars propose that the Ancient Macedonians were a Greek ethnos throughout their history". Hxseek says "It is only those which actually go into the issue on a deeper level which highlight that the issue is not so straightforward." which describes any in depth work on every nation/tribe/people in the Balkans, Europe, Asia Minor...the world. The conclusions are more or less straightforward regarding the "ethnicity" of the ancient Macedonians as is generally accepted by the world's scholarly institutions BUT there are very competent and acknowledged voices proposing other theories and ways to approach the issue. Who is more or less academic is not for us to judge. I hope that we will let this sentence be and put this matter behind us focusing on improving the article. What was always the problem was a general lack of respect to what we did not agree to and this attitude should stop if we are to ever do something here that will last. When the academic community embraces as a whole the idea that there can be no purity in nations and as such the whole notion of nations should be discarded as a self-proclaimed or imposed illusion, then we may rethink our position about this and any other article that describes any group of people. I would not like us to again engage in endless theoretical discussions about the details of the issue, we should only accept the current consensus, whether we agree with it or not, whether we regard some of the academics (those we each agree with) more competent and scholarly than the others (we do not agree with) and put it in words in a respectful and as neutral as possible manner. I hope that this sentence achieves this goal. In the article we can present all theories in more detail but I hope laconically and in a manner that will not shift the interest from the people to the dispute. For example, the whole chapters about the participation of the Macedonians in the Olympics and those about the "ancient sources" should go. They only serve as an argument for or against the ethnic affiliation of the Macedonians to the Greeks and are of very little value to understanding the ancient Macedonians. Some of them (maybe a list of notable personnas and a list of sources without pinpointing certain texts) should be incorporated someplace in the end and all comments as for the Macedonians' Greekness or non-Greekness should be done away with. Right now the article looks like a forum thread. GK (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that personal opinions are personal, however I was noticing to you guys that in linguistic field, there is no majority of linguists whom affiliate Ancient Macedonian with any other language whatsoever. Or better said, the majority of the linguists don't agree in the issue. Before replying take a look at this chapter with a broad and multiple POV discussions on the subject. From what I see above you are pushing the things into "majority" area, while Hxseek was being more neutral. From what I know from linguistic field, I can say that his position is more based than yours. If you find the above author (Gandeto) biased and not expert in linguistic, I wish to bring your attention that apart Boardman(CH historian) Mallory (linguist) Woodard (linguist) which state that no conclusion can be done on ancient macedonian language, there is also another scholar Adrados (linguist)  which says that "from this point on it is generally believed that we are dealing with a language that is different from Greek.". I am not saying that his opinion is right or wrong, but we can see clearly that linguistically speaking the situation is very different from GK opinion. Aigest (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gandeto is a polemicist pamphleteer writting in a self-published book. It is telling of the paucity of your sources that you would cite him.--Anothroskon (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * JS Gandeto is actually a psycologist aka Josif Grezlovski ... A Macedonian (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I also have to agree that your choice of examples was rather poor. I will say that this should not be another "my sources vs your sources" game nor do I want to engage in a discussion about this (believe me, this topic has been exhaustingly discussed and if you need you could look it up in the archives). The fact that officially, ancient Macedonian is classified as a Hellenic language along with Greek is proof enough that the majority of linguists and historians view it as a close sibling to say the least. And of course, our focus here is not the ancient Macedonian language but the people GK (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that you – again? – use the word "officially" in this context is proof enough that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to assessing academic consensus. Sorry for being blunt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gandeto was an illustration of a different POV if you didn't get it. Now let me get this straight. Do you consider Bosworth, Mallory, Woodard and Adrados poor sources?! What do you think is the essence of their claims? Aigest (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that you - again? - do your best to sabotage an effort to produce the compilation of an acceptable lead in articles that have to do with ancient Macedonia comes as no surprise to me. Your lack of understanding of what certain English words mean should make you more careful instead of more arrogant, FP. I have absolutely no idea of what I am talking about because I used the word "officially"? Did you think that officially only has to do with states only? Check out official first and then tell me whether that http://linguistlist.org/forms/langs/get-familyid.cfm?CFTREEITEMKEY=IEG is or is not an official classification of the ancient Macedonian language compiled by the Institute for Language Information and Technology, an autonomous research center at EMU. What did you think? That I meant officially acknowledged by whom? By the EU? The UN? The US? Greece? RoMacedonia? Should I again assume (by now I hope you know what this word means at least) good intention on your part? It is really interesting the way you attack me for using a word you thought I used wrongly and let arguments uncommented that have nothing to do with the issue (the people), some of which are taken from books of acknowledged ultra-nationalist sources, while I, the "ignorant nationalist" (I guess), tried to just let it go and get back to the issue. A question like "officially classified by whom?" would have sufficed and would be very welcome and justified, since I did not give any more information but I guess that personal attacks work better for you. Sorry for being blunt. So, what is your problem yet again? Do you now doubt that it is the majority of scholars and scholarly institutions who classify the ancient Macedonians as a Greek people? Do you think that theory B amasses more support? Or is it just that you wish to say something without saying anything? GK (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Official" means: "published, done or approved by someone in authority", or "given a special position of importance by an organization" (Collins Cobuild Dictionary). The crucial term is "authority". In academic life, nobody has the authority to "officially" pass judgment on a controversial issue, and nobody in their right mind would ever pretend that's what they were doing. Nobody could possibly speak from such a position of authority conveyed by an organization, because there are no organisations whose business it is to convey such authority on anybody or anything. Academic organizations such as Linguistlist are not in the business of having opinions, and therefore nobody and nothing could possibly pronounce an opinion on an academic issue officially in their name. Got it now? The list you refer to is an entirely informal, anonymously compiled resource, where somebody has tried to pull together data from whatever sources they felt most appropriate and cram it into a uniform scheme, for purely practical reasons, and they had to fit in XMK somewhere. The idea that by doing this they were making an "official" pronouncment on an open academic question, which is an object of ongoing normal debate, is just mind-boggling.
 * BTW, I didn't ask you what you were referring to, because I already knew. We've been through this before. That's why I'm so impatient with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * so... according to you, this list (http://linguistlist.org/about.cfm) (http://linguistlist.org/forms/langs/LLDescription.cfm?code=xmk%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&CFTREEITEMKEY=xmk+++++++++++++++) is the unsigned work of some unnamed person, maybe even a student of sorts or even an amateur linguist or electric engineer (this is not how they describe it of course, but maybe you haven't really looked through the site?), which is kindly hosted by the said institution, supported by SIL International (http://www.sil.org/) (http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=xmk). Without an effort to convey judgment as to the credentials or quality of the said institution, I am no linguist myself and I really do not personally know the people, they have made a darn good job at making it clear that what they publish reflects their institution's position. On the other hand, since I have never exchanged a word with them they may as well have just sought to find a place to put xmk and that's about it. But, in this case, you had better take it out on them and not me. By the way, I contacted them, and I hope that they will answer back. If they do accept that the list only reflects the position of a certain editor and that they do not hold any academic responsibility as an institution for the content of the list I will not use the word "officially" again regarding the said list. Should they answer though, that they accept academic responsibility then the word "official" is correctly used, since they will have "officially" AS AN INSTITUTION voiced an opinion. Happy? GK (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Heheh. I just had a look at what the Linguistlist guys say about the sources they use. Guess what their principal source was for their treatment of (modern) Greek? Me. (or, to be fair, our learned friend Pitichinaccio.) Other than that, the only part of the sources listed for their "composite tree" that would obviously have gone into the Greek/Macedonian part would seem to be Katičić (highly relevant, of course), and a bunch of unnamed "Multiple sources Integrated by The LINGUIST List." These guys are citing Wikipedia as their source!. Grin. (Oh, and, by the way, if you continue to insist on calling this thing an "official" whatever, don't forget to summarise its content correctly: if it is  "officially" decreeing anything, it is that Macedonian was not Greek.) Interestingly, they also quote Bloomfield's classification, as an alternative tree, where Macedonian stands completely alone . (Note: don't get me wrong, the Linguistlist compilers are good guys®, and it's a highly useful resource, for what it's worth.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, point made. If the same organization presents 2 trees then they most possibly do not have an "official" opinion on the matter. I stand corrected and hope that their reply will not change that. They give a sizable list of sources, but I will not go through them. Again I am content that the tree presenting xmk as a separate language is only given by Bloomberg, while their "composite tree" boasts a much more extensive base of bibliography. I also clearly stated that "that ancient Macedonian is classified as a Hellenic language along with Greek is proof enough that the majority of linguists and historians view it as a close sibling to say the least.", so your second point I think is invalid. I believe I was very clear on that. GK (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Aigest, we have already established that there are scholars who doubt the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians prior to the 4th or 5th century. We also know that there are scholars who express doubts on whether the ancient Macedonian language was Greek (as is the majority of your examples) and those who maintain that it certainly was not Greek, as is the case with this Gandeto guy, who is not a POV you should have presented unless you did not know who it was, which is understandable. It is as if Greeks tried to cite the authors of their ultra-nationalistic sites as "just a point of view". First, we are not discussing language here, you should make your comments in the appropriate article, not here. Secondly, asking us to give our opinion on your "sources" will not lead anywhere since we know their POV and we have already classified it. The only goal such a discussion would achieve would be to again see long lists of scholars and institutions who support that ancient Macedonian was Greek and other (always less extensive but sizable) lists of scholars who support that ancient Macedonian was probably Greek but we cannot be conclusive, more or less what we can say about most extinct languages we have only sparse evidence we can with certainty attribute to them. Lastly we also would see some lists (even less extensive) of scholars who claim that ancient Macedonian was not Greek but more akin to Illyrian (I suspect that this is your position), Thracian or, in some really extreme cases, even Slavic. The question here is NOT whether the Macedonians spoke Greek or not but whether at least 51% of scholars and scholarly institutions maintain that they were a Greek people. Even those who support that they most probably were a Greek people (or in your case that they most probably spoke a Greek dialect) fall in this category, since they give a probability of more than 50% that the ancient Macedonians were a Greek people (or spoke Greek respectively). So, again, do you people, and I do not mean only Aigest, REALLY doubt that it is the majority of scholars and scholarly institutions (and I am not even saying "vast" or "large" majority as many Greeks would feel better with) who claim that the ancient Macedonians were (or most probably were) a Greek ethnos? GK (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @GK. I am not favoring neither of hypotheses already expressed. I am just saying that the authors I mentioned above remain skeptical about the Ancient Macedonian language. Illyrian, Thracian, Thraco-Illyrian, Pelasgian, Hellenic etc all are unprovable hypotheses, because we have too few data. From the language rules ph->p, dh->d bh->b etc, Ancient Macedonian is connected with the Old Balkan languages of Thracian, Illyrian, Dacian but not with Greek which has another rule on these consonants; on the other hand there are data linking it with Greek, (names, writings etc). Since the data are so few and very contradictory, the expert remain skeptical. This is the state of art of Ancient Macedonian language for the moment. Aigest (talk) 14:13, 27 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)


 * with "throughout their history" I mean from the day that the Macedonian state was "officially" established. This might be sometime during the 10th, 9th or 8th century BC. Before that it and into the 2nd, 3rd or 15th millennium BC of course it is of no concern to us. As for the fluidity of ethnicity and identity adoption, don't get me wrong, in theory it is very appealing and sometimes useful to use as an argument but as a theory it does not elliminate the need/practice to classify peoples (culturally, linguistically etc) nor does it negate the fact that the (vast) majority of scholars does it too. You seem to be concerned with eras much older than the specific timelines we occupy ourselves with here. We are talking 2-4 centuries long. The process you are advocating is what transformed the non-Greek Macedonians to Greeks according to the proponents of theory B and certainly what transformed the various pre-Greek tribes into Greeks. Of course a people can change, be amalgamated or even sucked into another culture but for some reason this debate exists and as long as we do not find a suitable, respectable and as neutral as possible description, all kinds of editors will understandably barge in and destroy the article. My efforts actually are to delete all this useless and irrelevant information in the article which only serve to "prove" that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks. I think we all agree that the article now looks like a forum thread. If we clearly explain the situation in one sentence then we will at last be free to make it an informative article about the people. GK (talk) 09:32, 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)
 * What I was discussing above was not so much a disagreement about any particular piece of wording in the article, but about GK's use of a faulty argument here on the talkpage. The more general problem I have with the actual wording is, I guess, mainly that it still presents the whole issue as if it was a dichotomy: they either "were", or "were not", "Greek". Presented this way, both of these (alleged) positions presuppose that there is such a thing as an objective property of "Greekness", which objectively either applies or doesn't apply to them. But this is exactly the misunderstanding at the basis of the whole nationalist logic that distorts this debate so much in popular perception. Our best specialised sources (including e.g. Borza) simply do not frame the issue in these terms. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 27 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)

Disambiguation of the term 'Ancient Macedonians'
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 here.
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?

http://macedonia-evidence.org

"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)


 * (over-long copy-and paste text dump snipped; contents can be seen at the link provided above. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 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)

Content
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)


 * Hxseek, if the 'promosing new book' you are going to read about Ancient Macedonia is in line with the current scholarship consensus it can be included in this article. If it is not, then it is the minority, and cannot give undue weight to this article.  If this book (which I assume by the nature of your edits will have nationalist anti-greek undertones) refutes modern consensus and the works of the majority of the scholars on Ancient Macedonia, it can be cited in its own section, but cannot be used as a basis for this page.  Therefore there is no need to wait for a single particular book to be released before re-doing this page or adding content. There are 2500 years worth of written materials, and thousands of books from scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries that are available for sources of your study.   --174.117.97.72 (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If this is the book: A Companion to Ancient Macedonia, by Joseph Roisman, Ian Worthington, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, then I think Hxseek will be a little disappointed... A Macedonian (talk) 05:27, 27 November 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)


 * Hmm, you do sound disappointed Hxseek... However -even if you are so-, I kindly have to ask you not to use such comments when you referring to me or any other editor, as they are considered personal attacks... Thank you. (Without quotation marks), A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view 2
"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)


 * No, the predominant view in the specialised literature (Borza is still the standard work) is that they were a group that shared ethnic descent with the Greeks but which, during the time of classical antiquity, had diverged culturally and politically to such a degree that they neither regarded themselves as part of the same unit as the Greeks further south, nor were regarded and treated as such by them; and that under these circumstances framing the question in terms of a simple "yes"/"no" dichotomy (they either "were", or "were not", "Greek") is an inadmissible over-simplification, because it implies that the category of "Greekness" exists as an objective essential property, which, of course, it is not. As long as the debate on this page will continue to be framed in terms of such a dichotomy, because contributors cannot free themselves from the simplistic assumptions of ethnic essentialism, it will never lead to any sensible result. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * However other notable scholars clearly agree that the "Greekness" of ancient Macedonia and Macedonians exists, take for for instance 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). Anyway, since there is a debate amongst scholars on the issue (although them who argued against the "Greeknes"" of ancient Macedonia/Macedonians are minority) I think it's best to leave the article as it is. A Macedonian (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect, A simple yes/no dichotomy is absolutely admissible as there is no over-simplification of 'Greekness' due to the overwhelming evidence for it. It is a concept that can absolutely be objectively  quantified by various traits and properties of the people and culture.  I think the problem here is your definition or interpretation of the semantic meaning of the work 'Greek'.  In this situation,  it describes the group of people who shared the same general religion and language in that part of the world in ancient times.


 * That the Macedonians spoke Greek (whatever dialect), participated in the Olympic games, and practiced the Greek polytheistic religion, make them Greek by definition.  If your definition of 'Greek' is different to the majority, then that is a separate issue, and should not come into play on this page. If you wish to highlight small differences between The macedonians and other greeks, then you are free to create a section of the article to do that.  However, since the literature casting them as separate is the extreme minority in academia, this article has given them undue weight, which is in violation of NPOV wikipedia policies.


 * That the Ancient Macedonians were considered Greek, is the wide-ranging consensus of ancient scholars at hundreds of major universities including Oxford, Cambridge, and Ivey league institutions. I can provide a list of Professors and authors who are considered experts on the topic if that is what is required to put this to rest. Literally hundreds and hundreds of sources from modern scholars, and ancient contemporaries can be provided, their email addresses and phone numbers can be provided as well.  Your single citing of Borza's work, again, part of the extreme minority, in now way give you carte-blance to remove the term 'Greek' as a descriptor from the lead of this article.    The removal of the term greek is POV editing, and i'm afraid a very large group of sources will have to be compiled and this bring this to arbitration if you and similar POV editors (who may or may not be in a clique) continue to edit-war this page.


 * I have looked at the page of Alexander the Great and read the discussion and arbitration regarding him being called 'Greek' on the first line of the article. It was a long drawn out process, but luckily reliable sources from the majority, as well as the NPOV spirit of wikipedia prevailed.   Note that Alexander, and Philip, and the rest of the royal familiy, and the generals of Alexanders armies, are all defined as Greeks on wikipedia.


 * Again, this article should be structured as not to give undue weight to minority opinions. Because of this, The Ancient Macedonians will be defined as greek in the article, and any minority works discussing their differences with other greek city-states can be discussed IN the article.


 * Just so you know, the Greeks were a very different culture and people to almost any others in history. There was no 'same unit' for all Greeks.  Every Greek city-state regarded themselves as different from the others, Each city-state had its unique differences.  Athens a democracy, Sparta run by Tyrants.  They were culturally and and politically different from eachother, yet nobody questioned their Greekness.


 * Your statement that "during the time of classical antiquity, had diverged culturally and politically to such a degree that they neither regarded themselves as part of the same unit as the Greeks further south, nor were regarded and treated as such by them;" applies to almost all Greek city-states, who each saw themselves and different and superior to each other, and is absolutely not a valid argument for removing the term 'Greek' to describe the ancient macedonians.   The onus is on you to provide a significant amount of reliable sources disputing the fact that the ancient macedonians spoke greek, participated in the olympic games, and followed the greek polytheistic religion -- the general guidelines for considering a people 'Greek' and part of the Greek world. I'm sorry, but whatever cultural or political differences they had with other city-states does not remove their Greekness as defined by the vast majority of scholars from respected, reliable Universities around the world.


 * Although I am editing from an IP, you should not dismiss me.   I will create an account later if logic does not prevail.   The other IP edits seem to have come from a University in Canada, I assume that history students, or professors, are passionate about the historiological accuracy of articles like these.    I am  a new user to wikipedia and am still becoming familiar with all the nuances, but I am taking time out of my busy day to deal with this issue.  --174.117.97.72 (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * posting by banned user User:Crossthets removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't hurt to include this discussion, with appropriate reliable sources, in the article.  Corvus cornix  talk  20:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is, more or less, in Modern discussions section. A Macedonian (talk) 22:23, 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)

Recent Edits (Jan 22) by HxSeek and Future Pref.
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.


 * No, that is most definitely not an established consensus. It is the nationlists' caricature of what they perceive the consensus to be based on a one-dimensional oversimplifying reading of the literature, and stating it another million times will not make it truer. Hxseek's version is vastly superior to the old one. You also conveniently overlook that he isn't even quoting Borza, but the best and most recent piece of relevant survey literature, (A Companion to Ancient Macedonia. J Roisman, I Worthington. Wiley Blackwell, 2010. Macedonians and Greeks. Johannes Engels, p 82), clearly the best WP:RS that we

could wish for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you are incorrect. The Academic Consensus according to 350 leading scholars is that the Macedonians were Greek. See the link I sent you. Saying that it is not established consensus is nonsense.   HxSeek's nationalist undertones trying to discredit the consensus A) does not belong in the lead.   and B)  He was quoting borza, and Borza was on the refernces.  HxSeek also conveniently REMOVED this reference http://macedonia-evidence.org.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.97.72 (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And he very rightly did so, because unlike the new Roisman book, http://macedonia-evidence.org/ clearly isn't a reliable source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * http://macedonia-evidence.org/ is a reliable source, backed by over (now) 390 scholars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.97.72 (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it is clearly a political advocacy site; as such it stands outside the rule of (peer-reviewed, etc.) academic discourse. That some academics have supported it is of no relevance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "That SOME academics have support is is of no relevance". There are now over 390 Academics supporting this view.  Including the Professors and Chairs from  Harvard University, Princeton, University of Cambridge (UK), Oxford (UK),  Columbia University, Brown University...  You are stating that these

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)
 * 174. national advocacy sites like macedonia-evidence aren't reliable sources.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I do agree that the new paragraph could be merged and integrated with the section that's already down in the body of the text. [[User:Future Perfect at

Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] ☼ 11:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Definitely belongs more in the "Modern discussions" section than the lede. Moved. Athenean (talk) 06:32, 23 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)


 * You should read Jonathan M. Hall' books: Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (1997) and Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture (2002). On Ancient Macedonians he also authored a chapter "Contested Ethnicities: Perceptions of Macedonia within Evolving Definitions of Greek Ethnicity" in Irad Malkin's Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (2001) You will find there a lot of good quality material about construction of Ancient Greek and Macedonian

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)
 * Thanks for those pointers, sounds interesting. At last we're getting some fresh input in terms of serious literature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 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)


 * Publish them "in a peer-reviewed academic journal"? Borza had a lifetime of publishing in the field. You might want to check the recent festschrift in his honour, Macedonian legacies: studies in ancient Macedonian history and culture in honor of Eugene N. Borza, edd. Timothy Howe, Jeanne Reames, Regina Books, 2008. As usual, it should contain a bibliography of his publications, and you will glean something about his reputation from the list of contributors. By the way, the status of journal articles as a privileged measurement of impact in the field differs somewhat between disciplines. In history, monograph

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)


 * Dr. K, for Jonathan Hall being "widely cited in academic works", try Catherine Morgan's Early Greek States Beyond the Polis (2003) or Irad Malkin's The Returns of Odysseus: Colonization and Ethnicity (1998) or Margalit Finkelberg's Greeks and Pre-Greeks. Aegean Prehistory and Greek Heroic Tradition (2005) or ... search more and see for yourself. Hall also authored numerous chapters in edited volumes - this alone substantiates the currency of his theories. Daizus (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your replies (and patience) about Borza and Jonathan Hall. This is very helpful. Regarding Future's reply, I can see why a monograph can be authoritative when it is accepted and cited by the academic community. Finally, was Borza's rebuttal of Hamond's conclusions widely accepted as well? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:37, 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)


 * You can't synthesize sources like that, i.e. that Hammond states that the Macedonians were Greek-speakers and then claim that linguists do not consider their language Greek. It is also not for you to judge that "his linguistic conclusions are wrong", unless you have a reliable source that explicitly says so. You can't just pick and choose which parts of a scholar's work are "correct" (i.e. they conform to your POV), and which are "wrong" (the ones that don't). You are engaging in the same kind of behavior that you accuse your opponents of. Your paragraph, while overall an improvement, contains several errors and needs work. For example, the first sentence kept the Cawkwell and Worthington references that state the Macedonians were Greeks, but you changed the wording! Unacceptable. Also, what is the point of the sentence "The formation of a Macedonian ethnos went hand in hand with an emerging Macedonian kingdom negotiating its role in greater Balkan political climate"? Then there is the issue of selectively quoting from the Companion. While it is without a doubt the top-notch source on the subject, by using it selectively, any old POV-pusher can use for his/her own ends. I don't have time to delve into the matter deeply as of this time, but will do so at the first opportunity. Athenean (talk) 22:00, 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)