Talk:Ancient Macedonians/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

New finds shown in Oxford Museum ...also ....guys...

Guys, after scanning the long discussion, I have concluded that you are in immediate need of a NON-expert. Although "Athenean" & the editor formerly known as hxSeek agreeing on something would be an epic deed, I'm worried the article would end up as entagled as the current conversation is.

I wish I could help more, but for now I wonder if any of you is aware of any new finds on the subject about the Ancient Macedonian treasures on show in Oxford museum. Possibly any new papers to put updated information in the article - epigraphies & such. Thank you, all! Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Also found the link to the official information page at the Ashmolean Museum. Just to say, it's interesting to note that the above - authoritative one might argue - text, uses the concepts of Macedonian and Greek interchangeably i.e. read: debate on the Greekness as far as Oxford is concerned is a non-issue. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The exhibition looks interesting indeed, but I'd keep the OR a matter of (your) opinion {not that I disagree with your conclusion, necessarily} Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims

There are two claims at the beginning of the "Culture" section that are not substantiated by the sources used.

1) At the same time, much of its cultural and societal organization showed features more typical of the central Balkan civilizations. This is sourced to Zosia Archibald, in the Companion to Ancient Macedonia, Wiley Blackwell 2010, pages 327 and 328. But upon closer inspection, all I see in the source to substantiate this claim is The organizational capacity available to complex territorial powers of this kind [i.e. Macedon and Thrace], was qualitatively different from that of states in central and southern Greece. on page 328. Thus I find the claim not backed up by the source. Not only that, but "central Balkan civilizations" sounds odd and is nowhere to be found. I thus propose something to the effect of "At the same time, the larger territory and organizational capacity of Macedonia compared to the city-states of central and southern Greece resulted in an economy that was qualitatively and quantitatively different."

2) Another problem is with the sentence A resultant "Graeco-Illyrian" culture became evident throughout Macedonia, northern Epirus and northern Greece which persisted until the Hellenistic period. sourced to John Wikles, The Illyrians, Blackwell Publishers 1992, pages 104-107. Upon closer inspection, it is quite evident that Wilkes is speaking about the Greek colonies in Illyria. It is there that according to him, some scholars have proposed such a "Graeco-Illyrian" culture. Macedonia is not mentioned at all, and it is quite evident that the passage in Wilkes has nothing to do with it. Even the northernmost reaches of Upper Macedonia are quite far from the area of Greek colonization in Illyria. The statement should thus be removed.

Lastly, the statement in the "Society" section "In this respect, Macedonia was similar to Thessaly and Thrace." is sourced to Zosia Archibald, in the Companion to Ancient Macedonia, Wiley Blackwell 2010, page 213. Yet the chapter written by Archibald in the Companion begins at page 326. Thus, this citation is problematic and needs to be fixed. Because the claim is quite plausible, I will not remove it but I am adding a verification needed tag until it is fixed. Athenean (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding point (1) This point is beyond doubt. The source has not been misrepresented. If it is qualitatively different to southern and central Greece, and it is alike Thrace (and in other sources also Thessaly, Illyris and EPirus), then it is not wrong to label this similarity as "central Balkan" ? If you want a more direct reference see A Wholly Non-Aristotelian Universe, J K Davies, pg 251: On Molossian society, "Its similarity to the Macedonian monarchy on the other side of the Pindus (and probably also.. to the Illyrian and Thracian monarchies) would be obvious. ..We may tentatively think of "Balkan Iron Age monarchy" as a specific type of polity with its own uniformities and patterns of interaction" {internal commas added by S.V.) In essence, the organisation was fundamentally different; and not merely different due to Macedonia's larger size, as you suggest (and now actually have misrepresented the source). That is why used the term 'central Balkan', which is seems indeed appropriate

point (2) is also supported by archaeologists. The finds from the area of "Old kingdom" Macedonia from the preceding Iron age are undoubtedly of "Glasinac" type as a whole. This includes Vergina, Pateli, Chauchitza, Gevgheli, and most of northern Epirus, for that matter. These continue, for the most part, into the Hellenistic period. Admittedly, there are some difficulties in dating, exactly because Greek imports (which are chronologically sensitive) arrive so late, c. 7th/ 6th century (Snodgrass, Dark Age Greece, p 133)(Butler 2008). Wilkes' discussion on pg 104-7, it is true, doesn't mention specifically Macedonia, but it describes well how Hellenic infuences became more widespread in the areas north of central Greece (describes 2 routes: a predominant and older Adriatic/ coastal one to central Illyria - which as you point out is rather removed from our area of interest; but also a second route from Asia Minor Ionic, which became particularly evident during the 6th century (ironically with the arrival of the Persians. This then became predomiant, and certainly was the factor which spread Greek influences in Macedonia. ttic. Wilke's discussion on Macedonia itself is on pg 49, and is based on Hammond, suggesting that Illyrians ruled Macedonia till the Argeads took over (However, Hammond dated the Illyrian phase in Vergina to 750 BC. He admits that this date is purely based on his idea that the Argeads took over at 750 BC, calculated on each king ruling 25 yrs back from Archelaus, who ruled at turn of 6th century. This was not dated by independent archaeological methodolgy, Snodgrass would have this last later, and clearly states the Greek cultural elements only penetrated in 6th century, which he dated by independent stratigraphical and chronological analysis of the mnaterial items at hand). Stipcevic makes more explicit mention of this 'mixing', but he calls it the "Trbeniste" culture, which flourished as late as 4th century, which began essentially as a Glasinac culture which became infused with Greek influences in 6th and 5th centuries, and covered Macedonia, northern Greece and Epirus. (The Illyrians, pg 107) The wording can be amended if you wish.

in fact, for both (1) and (2) see "evidence suggests that as the Balkan tribes of northern Greece were integrated into the Aegean world during the fifth century BCE, a previously strong regional burial tradition, constituting an important means of forging community, began to fall apart. Selected Greek burial practices were integrated into Balkan death-ritual as the loosely-organized Balkan tribes looked to exogenous sources for cultural models." [Butler, 2008}

(3) This is not from Archbald's chapter in the companion of Macedonia, its from another contribution, also done in 2010, in the Companion of Archaic Greece. I can clarify that reference shortly

Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

All very interesting, but it is WP:OR unless you can back it up with sources that specifically back your claims. Regarding the cn tag you removed (i.e. reverted), it is quite insufficient to say "it is sourced to Hammond" in the edit summary and leave it at that. Sourced to Hammond? Title of the work, publisher, date, page number please. Ditto for the stuff about the Macedonian pantheon. Hall? Again, title, publisher, date, page number. It has to satisfy WP:V. As far as the "central Balkan" stuff, again, it's interesting but OR unless you have a source that specifically makes the claim. It is not enough to surmise that, oh they had similar burial practices therefore they had more in common with the central Balkans. And no, I didn't misrepresent the source and I do not appreciate the accusation. In fact I followed the source extremely faithfully. Lastly, regarding the "Graeco-Illyrian" stuff, again, you are deep in WP:OR territory unless you can back that with a source that unequivocally confirms the claim. Sourcing it to Wilkes page 104-107, where he only talks about the Greek colonies in Illyria, now that's misrepresenting a source. And I also note that you have again violated your revert parole, for the second or third time now. Athenean (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Come on Athenean ! See the first paragraph of "Economy". It was clearly referenced: Hammond, CAH, Vol 3 pt 1, 1982 page 621-624. The confusion was created by your needlessly inserting a ref tag in the middle of (an otherwise uncontroversial) sentence, and in return you accuse me of reverting just because I removed an unnecessary ref tag ? That ain't cricket, mate

And did you miss the additioanl reference I just included about the "Balkan" monarchy type ? I will clarify the references and add whatever is required. The similarity with the "central Balkan" tribes goes beyond merely burial practices, but extended to the nature of how the monarchy itself was run, the society, etc. (BTW I am not saying that the inhabitants of the region used to speak Illyrian, much less that they actually saw themselves as such)

We can altogether remove the "Graeco-Illyrian" sentence, that's fine. I'm not pressing for its inclusion. However, I suggest we leave Wilkes overview on the extension of Greek trade into the region. It is a good summary of how things happened. I will make a suggestion

Slovenski Volk (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

OK about the Hammond ref. My bad. However, you could have just mentioned it on the page and I would have self-reverted, instead of reverting it yourself. Athenean (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry. Thanks Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Rational inconsistencies between articles

I find it odd that self-identification is used as a reason to call the citizens of the former Yugoslav "Macedonians" - yet on the other exact same reasoning is avoided for ancient Macedonians? (who self-identified as Greeks for centuries - see ancient Pan-Hellenic events) Claiming that self-identification applies to one group but does not apply to another seems rather suspect reasoning.

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 upon being admitted to the Olympic games as a self-identifying Greek, Herodotus, " Histories", 9.45, ed. A. D. Godley

Another oddity is this article depends heavily on Borza (who of course is among a minority of authors that claims ancient Macedonians weren't Greeks) while not giving enough references to hundreds (if not thousands) of other accredited scholars that dramatically disagree with him (like well respected author Robin Lane Fox of Oxford). However, running with the claim that Borza is somehow more special than virtually all other authors (an unexplained claim that I would note that is made universally by the exact same contributors that support the former Yugoslav republic in the name dispute) why is it then that same Borza's historical views (with regards to the historical claims of the former Yugoslav republic) not a prominent part of the name dispute article then?

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. - Eugene N. Borza, "Macedonia Redux", "The Eye Expanded: life and the arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.87.150 (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

More

• Regarding the "similarities to central Balkan cultures", the addition and source provided [1] are still far from satisfactory. As is clear from reading the source, it says that Molossian society was similar to the Macedonian monarchy, and probably also to the Illyrian and Thracian monarchies, i.e. it's not directly concerned with the Macedonian monarchy, it talks about the Molossians. As for the the concept of the "Balkan Iron Age monarchy", the source says "we may tentatively" think of such a concept. The source uses heavy hedging ("probably", "tentatively"), while the article presents these things as solid facts. It is clear that this "Balkan Iron Age monarchy" is a tentative concept suggested by scholars (e.g. just like some scholars tentatively suggest, e.g., that ancient Macedonians were Greeks), not an established fact. This is problematic. It needs to be properly hedged, if not altogether removed.

• Regarding the claim about "cultural intercourse was predominantly with the Glasinac kingdoms", all I can find in Wilkes regarding Macedonia on p. 49 is that "Hammond has identified evidence of an ephemeral Illyrian presence", not that "cultural intercourse was predominantly with the Glasinac kingdoms. Wilkes does mention "Large amounts of material" (presumably Illyrian), but mostly in the middle Vardar, Paeonia, Pelagonia, Lychnitis, Ohrid, etc... but these lands are not Macedon, at least, not until much later. Wilkes goes on to mention a Illyrian "presence" in Macedonia, but this is a far cry from "predominant cultural intercourse". Again, I find the claim unsubstantiated by the references used. This becomes all the more implausible when considering the Macedonians had a history of hostility and conflict with the Illyrians to the north.

• I don't see anything about "Greek imports" in Stipcevic or Snodgrass, and I also really don't see what the Trebeniste culture mentioned in Stipcevic has to do with the Ancient Macedonians. He makes it clear it is an Illyrian culture that developed out of the Glasinac chiefdoms, and had a presence in norther Macedonia, but this culture was not that of ancient Macedonians, who were further south.

• The sentences about the "Greek imports", ostensibly sourced to Wilkes page 104-107 are not anywhere close to being backed up by Wilkes p. 104-107. As is evident from reading Wilkes, he is speaking about Greek imports to Illyria. Not one of the places mentioned is in Macedonia, and in fact the Macedonians are mentioned only once, with respect to Stobi, a settlement of Greeks and Macedonians outside of Macedonia. What's going on here? The stuff about Greek imports is relevant in Illyrians, but is wholly irrelevant here. Wilkes 104-107 has nothing to do with Macedonia and Macedonians. As for the Hellenistic period, all Wilkes says is that Greek goods are found in regions bordering Macedonia, i.e. immediately to the north of Macedonia, i.e. not Macedonia itself. The claim that "Greek cultural influences became confined to Macedonia and its immediate periphery" made in the article simply does not stand up based on the source used. Moreover, by the Hellenistic period, Macedonia was fully absorbed into the Greek world, hence it makes no sense to speak of "Greek cultural influence" at this point.

Based on the above analysis of the sources, a sentence mentioning northern, non-Greek influences in Macedonia, sourced to Snodgrass, would be acceptable, but the remaining additions do not stand up on closer examination. Athenean (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(1) You're incorrect here. The fact that Davies' article is about Molossian polity and ethnos doesn't in any way detract that it is a more than WP:RS on the matter. Nor is its suggestion that Macedonia, Epirus, Illyris and Thrace shared a similarity in the way in the way their societies and traditions were shaped anything less than clear. I have not in anyway misrepresented this article, nor have I placed any undue weight on it by referencing a mere 1 sentence to it.

Moreoever, this article is consistent with a weight of other reliable evidence, to which I am suprised that someome who appears to be so interested in the matter, is unaware of. Nevertheless, I will reiterate it.

• Space, Heirarchy and Community in Archaic & Classical Greece. A Archibald. Pg 212 Ancient Macedonia, Thessaly and Thrace are often described in ways which suggest they had a good deal in common. This pertained not only to geographic features in landscape, but societal organization, settlement type, and culture.

• Then there is the article in the Companion to Macedonia, pg 340 In cultural terms, the material evidence suggests that there are some close analogies between Macedonian and Thracian societies

• We also have evidence suggests that as the Balkan tribes of northern Greece were integrated into the Aegean world during the fifth century BCE, a previously strong regional burial tradition, constituting an important means of forging community, began to fall apart. Selected Greek burial practices were integrated into Balkan death-ritual as the loosely-organized Balkan tribes looked to exogenous sources for cultural models. Adopted selectively and reconstituted in the radically different Balkan framework, the Greek burial practices became decoupled from their larger significance in the original framework of the polis. Of Swords and Strigils: Social change in ancient Macedon. M Butler, 2008. UMI publication.

I think there is more than concise support here.

(2) Again, there is clear evidence

• Hammond: History of Macedon. Vol 1. Pg 420-21 from 800 BC, in Vergina "new objects made an appearance in burials. ..Discoveries at other sites add to the evidence from Vergina. ..Visoi... Pelagonia.. Pateli in Eordea... Kozani .... and a large number of small sites in the middle Heliacmon..Also: Axioupolis, Chauchitsa, Gevgheli. The meaning of these radical changes in not in doubt. They represent an expansion of the culture of central Yugoslavia, of whch Glasinac is the typical site. In ethnological terms it was an expansion of the Illyrian peopes....The expansion might have been gradual to start, but it was continuous and it became complete within the period 800 - 650 BC. "

More than emphemeral. {And this follows an entire Bronze Age period of cultural alignment with the so-called Lausitz culture of the Balkans and central -eastern Europe.}

• Hammond again, The Illyrians present no problem; for the archaeological evidence is lcear at Vergina and in the lower Vardar valley, that they were in control for some time in the 8th century to 650 BC. Hammond, CAH 3, 3, pg 274.

• Snodgrass: Pg 161-162 The burial rite (in Vergina) cannot be matched to anything in southern Greek peninsula..rather, they match the tumuli of th Glasinac culture especially, which also partly coincide with the date of Vergina. And “althgether the graves of Maceadonia, lke their contents, are best explained by the durability of the non-Greek cultural element here, on which the phenomena of Greek influence – the Protogeometric pottery, and perhaps the rare cremations at Vergina- are fleeting”

• Snodgrass pg 253-254. The female ornamenets in Macedonia were richly endowed, bronze jewellery and ornaments, and very rich compared to Iron Age Greek graves. With a clear affinity to Balkans. When the pottery and metal finds are taken together in Vergina, we get a pitcutre of a flourishing community with a predominantly northern influence (257)

• Snodgrass states that these features lasted for several centuries, perhaps as many as 3 centuries in Vergina (pg 253) And perhaps might not have began until 8th century (253) - bringing it well into 5th century.

And this combines with settlement evidence that most of the sites show continuity from Iron Age to Hellenistic times. Eg Thessaloniki ! Ie same people were living here since the Neolithic.

This archaeological fact has little to do with the fact that Illyrians appear as perpetual enemies of Macedonia. You are confusing material culture with political alignment and/ or ethnic identity. The fact that Macedonian society showed similarities with the Illyrians or Thracians deosn't mean they were the same people, or needed to be allies. Nor does the fact that later we see gymnasia and Greek writing necessarily mean they waw themselves as Greek. These are material and structural tokens which do not a priori carry symbolic significance.

(3) Greek imports:

• Snodgrass "datable Greek imports are notably rare until about 600 BC. . Pg 133

• Stipcevic: I will clarify again. The Trebeniste culture developed from Glasinac culture, and grew in Greek imports (mostly of Ionic type) from latter 6th century. This culture zone included Macedonia, northern Greece and Epirus. As a whole lasted into the 4th century. Pg 107

I am not saying this was the culture of the ancient Maceodnians. We know that culture was varied. But this was certianly the preceding culture throughout Macedonia, and one still present in 6th century, and even later (ie into Hellenistic times. The burials in Vergina of Phillip stil are , essentially, single mound style burials typical of the central Balkans (!), althouh obviously very Hellenized and most wealthy)

(4) I think we are misunderstanding each other here, perhaps I phrased it badly. No one doubts that Macedonia was very much part of Greek tradition in the Hellenistic period. The point from Wilkes is his summary of Greek trade on a more continental level: ie Greek trade had penetrated to the northern Balkans by the 6th century, but for some reason became confined to Macedonia during the 4th to 2nd. (pg 107) Yes, here Wilkes focuses on Illyrians, but sheds light on Macedonia nevertheless. By what means and by what routes these Greek objects came to lie among the treasures of Illyrian tombs..? It may be for a period an overland transit existed from the direction of Asia Minor and the Black Sea ...In a later period the main direction of Greek penetration was from the direction of the Adriatic and southern Italy.

There is nothing symbolic here. It is just an analysis of the prevalent patterns of trade at certain times. The former Asia Minor -> Illyria trade route ran via Macedonia, obviously (being overland from Asia to Illyria). In the latter period it went via the Adriatic, But this doesn't affect that Macedonia remained very much a part of Greek culture despite the fact that it dried up amngst the inland Illyrians

Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

1) Nothing in the sources provided about a "Balkan Iron Age monarchy", which only the source used in the article mentions, and which clearly puts it forth "tentatively". Do you get my point? It is one thing to say Macedonia had lots in common with Epirus, Thessaly and Thrace, which I do not dispute, it is quite another to present a "tentative" "Balkan Iron Age monarchy" as established fact. I will rephrase.

So the sources agree that Macedonian monarchy and society had features very similar to other central Balkan monarchies which existed in the Late Iron Age and beyond. And we have a source which puts forth the phrase "Balkan I A monarchy", albeit hypothetically. It is saying that the structure of Macedonian polity was more like the other "Balkan Iron AGe monarchies" than the poleis in the south. Is it something about those words that you object to ? Becasue I really do not see what is so controversial here, and feel that nothing has been hedged or breached

2) Again, a question of weight. There is nothing in the sources provided to suggest that the "predominant" cultural exchanges were with Glasinac. Some cultural exchanges definitely, but there is a huge different between that and "predominant". Do you realize the weight of that word? The predominant cultural exchanges were with their immediate neighbors, the Thessalians, Molossians, Paeonians and Thracians, not some barbarian kingdoms in what is now Serbia. As for "ephemeral", that's not me saying it, that's Wilkes, so if you object to it, take it up with him. Like I said, a single sentence about "northern influences" based on Snodgrass should suffice. As for your point about "And when this combines with settlement evidence that most of the sites show continuity from Iron Age to Hellenistic times", you are again in WP:SYNTH and WP:OR territory. Thessaloniki? What about Thessaloniki?

Again here you might be misunderstanding. To orientate you, this refers to the latter Iron Age period, ie the 8th and 7th centuries. There is no doubt that our region of interest - Vergina, Kozani, Pateli, even the middle Heliacmon had burial features and artefact types which are called the Glasinac type. This doesn;t mean that we are talking about the Glasinac site itself in central Bosnia. Given that this style was prevalent throught the western Balkans, Macedonia and EPirus, of course most of the cultural exchanges were done with immediately surrounding neighbours. The "fashion" if you will changes by the latter 6th. Now Ionic styles are in "vogue", then you have your Attic in the 5th. All we are talking here is cultural exchanges, not necessarily migrations, ruling, or kinship.

3) Greek imports. I'm going to have to completely disagree here. The passage you have added clearly paraphrases Wilkes 1-4-107, but I have to repeat, there is NOTHING in Wilkes 104-107 about Macedonia. Nothing at all. This is sloppy sourcing bordering on intellectual dishonesty. The Black Sea? Why on earth would Ionian traders to Macedonia go via the Black Sea (not to mention the Danube)? As for the Trebeniste culture, again this is not Macedonia. This was an Illyrian culture on the north shore of Lake Ohrid, nothing to do with Lower Macedonia. So what if they had Greek imports? Your claim that it was the preceding culture in Macedonia is highly OR. All Stipcevic says is that they had Greek imports, which is irrelevant. As for the similarities in burials, that is already mentioned in the Religion section. So now the original Macedonians were Hellenized Trebeniste Illyrians? Absolutely not. Talk about undue weight. No, the sentences on the Greek imports, sourced Wilkes, clearly have nothing to do with Macedonia, but with Illyria further north. That much is obvious to anyone who reads Wilkes 104-107. We can leave a sentence sourced to Snodgrass about Greek imports in the 6th century BC (though again that is already mentioned with the Athenian red-figure pottery stuff), but that's about it.

I was not labouring this point, in fact, it wasnot even incuded in the article. I was merely using this as further evidence. Again, you;ve misunderstood it. I am not saying that Macedonian traders went to the Balck Sea ! I am saying that from the 6th century a major trade route existed from the Greek colonies on the Blakc Sea and Asia Minor, which went via Macedonia, then to Ilyria. You;ve completely misunderstod the point here, although i thought i wrote it relatively plainly above. Again, not a major point as far as the article goes, but illustrative of how trade functioned in our region.

4) If Macedonia was "fully Greek" by the Hellenistic period, how can we speak of "Greek imports" as if they were foreign? It is poorly phrased, and moreover unnecessary. The fact that Greek imports to Illyria dried up in the Hellenistic age is more relevant to Illyria but largely irrelevant here. Athenean (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, there already is a sentence about Greek imports in the 6th century BC: "a more ubiquitous presence of items of an Aegean-Mediterranean character is observed from the latter 6th century BC". How many times are we going to repeat the same thing? Athenean (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That is not what is written. It nowhere says that GReek imports were foreign to Maceaodnia in the 4th century , does it ?! As point 3 above, a relatively minor point, but it is good to identify the lines of trade Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

any-hoo, i changes the trade stuff on the article. Chopped out large chunk, I think it reads more clearly now ?Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, except you forgot to mention the time period of the Glasinac type burials (8th century BC). Otherwise I think we're good. Any luck with the Mycenean map btw? Athenean (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

see [2]

Identity

Dear Athenean, User No. 108, A Macedonian: I wish to discuss the recent confusion regarding the Identity section.

I think the article has so-far been improving well. This final chapter has received a considerable enlarging by my addition of a chunk of text from various detailed analyses on "identity". This contains (to my recollection) all the data contained in the ancient sources sectioned. I had also linked the individual ancient quotes and made the bold to stand out and immediately capture the readers attentions, before A Macedonian reverted it. Thus my first proposal is: If my new "dynamics" section already contains the ancient quotes, to we need to keep a separate 'ancient sources' sub-section which is merely now duplicating data unnecessarily ?

Similalry with "modern discussions"- my intention was to incoporate this into my discussion segment; as a "historiography segment". This is how it was included: In 19th century scholarship, some scholars argued that the Macedonians possibly had an Illyrian or Thracian origin 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 (i.e. Greco-Illyrian) have also been proposed.[101]

Following the archaeological discoveries of the 20th century, the material culture of the Macedonians became better characterized. The obvious Hellenic character of a plethora of material pertaining to social, cultural and epigraphic dimensions led numerous modern scholars to advocate that the ancient Macedonians were of Greek origin, a conclusion re-iterated by a large corpus of generalist literature.[102]

The rest was mere redundant, duplicated material, and I placed the interesting stuff on Aiani in the material culture- settlements section, where it more appropriately belongs.

I do not think this are inappropriate changes (?)

Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit late here now, but I will go over your proposed changes sometime tomorrow and weigh in. Athenean (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, there was no issue with my large do on Early History. My edits on Identity are not in anyway of a different character Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

While the latest additions in the Identity section are interesting, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed before they can be added to the article.

• Not sure the first sentence is needed, and I don't like how it manages to cram "Macedonia" and "Macedonians" four times in one sentence. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

->This sentence is important to highlight the focus of Macedonian identity. Grammatical points accepted

The focus on identity is sufficiently highlighted by the section title, I would think. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

But the take home message that was illsutrated by author is that this "Macedonian" identity was largely perpetuated by the king, nobles, army

Fair enough, but the grammatical aspect needs addressing. Athenean (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Are there sources for the claims that older literature adopts an "essentialist" approach and that more recent scholarship adopts a "constructionist" approach? Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Essentialism has been around for centuries, constructionism was developed in 1960s; it is self-evident to those with a general knowledge of anthropology. Nevertheless, we can quote Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity & Culture Pg 9-15; or the Companion –pg 82 (Engels)

All very plausible, but it still needs sourcing. I don't think Engels page 82 supports the claim. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, Hall then. Anyway, the historiography of anthropological thought a peripheral issue here

Fair enough. Athenean (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• In the Historiography section, I note the first paragraph, which asserts an Illyrian or Thracian origin is the same from the previous version, however the second paragraph has been changed drastically. As before, any statement asserting a Greek connection or origin is hedged by several "On the other hand..." and "Indeed...". There is that oh-so-slight slant that I have mentioned before. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree here. I wrote Following the archaeological discoveries of the 20th century, the material culture of the Macedonians became better characterized. The obvious Hellenic character of a plethora of material pertaining to social, cultural and epigraphic dimensions led numerous modern scholars to advocate that the ancient Macedonians were of Greek origin, a conclusion re-iterated by a large corpus of generalist literature. I have not hedged anything here. As far as I am concerned, the message is quite explicit (!)

Ok so far, but the excessive hedging I'm talking about is not here, but in the sentences that follow. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I go on: On the other hand, that a ‘whole parade’ of customs seem to be indigenous and non-Greek has led to conclusions that the Macedonians were an originally non-Greek tribe which subsequently became Hellenized.[103] Indeed, Macedonian material culture seemed to share most similarity with sites at Sindos, Pella, Trebenishte, etc; many of which were founded by non-Greek tribes. In what might be described as a north Greek - central Balkan cultural koinon, "'Greek' and 'non-Greek' may not be helpful terms in trying to clarify the material culture of these northern zones, irrespective of linguistic evidence". All valid and sourced. If "indeed" and "on the other hand" bother you, it can be changed to "also" (or what have you). I think this is needless pedantism, for it does not 'undermine' anything preceding. Maybe English is not your first language, and you somehow interpret words like "however", "nevertheless", and "indeed" as oppositional ?

No, it's not just the wording. This is exactly what I'm talking about. 4 sentences of hedging. WP:UNDUE and SYNTHy. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not hedging to clarify a complex situation. Please check your definition of "hedge". And it is not undue, either. But, see below point

It's not "clarification", it's hedging. And I know what I'm talking about. I note that no passages that claim the Macedonians were not Hellenic are similarly "clarified". I am going to have to disagree here. Athenean (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Who is Nikola Theodossiev and why is he used as a source? I think I can be forgiven a certain amount of skepticism. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

He is an archaeologist, published in the Oxford Journal of Archaeology, also referenced in the Companion. He published two extensive articles on the "Golden Masks" and other paraphernalia from Vergina, Trebenishte, Gevgeli, Sindos. His concluding paragraph is very interesting:

Finally, close examination of the archaeological finds in the lands between the Aegean and Adriatic coasts, shows well that identical grave construction, common burial rituals and similar kterismata (jewellery, weapons, pottery, etc.) were widespread among different Illyrian, Epeiran, Paeonian, Thracian and Macedonian tribes during the Late Archaic period, besides the regional traditions, while common iconography and style of the local goldsmith production and coinage were also adopted. Therefore, all these cultural features with their common elements, were not signs of specific ethnicity and particular tribal identity (Paeonian, Macedonian, Greek or other), as some scholars now believe, but testify to the strong interrelations and interactions between ethnically different people, who inhabited these Northern Balkan lands in antiquity.

It is necessary to have the full bibliographical info for the specific citation. Publisher, Volume No., Pages. However, I do not see what relevance this has on "Identity". He makes no claims on the identity of the Macedonians anyway. All I see is something to the effect that "many different ethnic groups inhabited the area" and "cultural features are not signs of ethnicity". Identity is mostly gleaned from written sources, not archeological findings. Not that it matters, but just out of curiosity, where is he from? Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you in that "Identity is mostly gleaned from written sources, not archeological findings". However, if we keep the first part about all the 'archaeological finds about in the identity section, then this also important stuff should be included too". I m not sure where he's from - judging by the name, he is either Bulgarian or Macedonian. Why ? Where is Hatzopoulos from ?

The problem is that there is nothing in the Teodossiev passage that has anything to do with the Macedonian's identity. The material culture of the Macedonians and its relation to neighboring cultures is amply discussed in the Society section, there is no need to repeat the same thing here. The proposed additions (and the article) are quite long, we should minimize repetition. Athenean (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Statements such as "The available literary evidence is a gauge as to how Greeks and Macedonians perceived each other." automatically imply the Macedonians were completely seperate from Greeks. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it need not. "Greeks" refers to the poleis from the central-south eastern littoral of the Greek peninsula. This can be made more explicit if you wish.

Point taken, but more explicit would be nice (e.g. "Macedonia and the Greek poleis"). Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine

• In the "Ethnographic Analysis of Ancient Sources" section, paragraph 3, second sentence, instead of citing Herodotus directly, it would be better to cite Engels from the Companion, p. 84: "For instance, Herodotus refers to a reliable tradition that the Dorians were formed by a fusion of Macedonians with other tribes, and this would amount to important evidence of a Greek character of the Macedonians." Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

OK.

• The sentence "In accepting his Greek credentials, the judges were either moved by the evidence itself, or did so out of political considerations - as reward for services rather than genuine belief of his evidence." appears unsourced. Again, any assertions of Hellenicity are hedged multiple times, while the sentence that follows "His appellation "Philhelene"..." is not. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

sourced to Badian page 34 in "Macedonians & Greeks". But I agree that we can balance this out by stating that Philhelenos was a title given for a true sentiment of love of Greece. Just add the source.

Ok. Which source? Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I was asking you for a source for the latter ; although I am sure I can find one

• Is there a source for the sentence "The overtures of Alexander I marks the first substantiated connection between Macedonians and Greeks."? Again I note that the wording is chosen so as to automatically imply the Macedonians were completely foreign from the Greeks. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Badian, page 34. And if you disagree, is there any clear evidence of any substantial and sustained connectivity prior to this ?? And as above, the wording does not a priori mean that they are seperate. We are deling specifically with the Macedonians ethnos vs Greeks in general

You mean to tell me there was no contact between Macedonia and southern and central Greece before then? Come on now. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, but it was the first historically substantiated "contact".

Then it needs to be phrased differently. "First political overtures" or something like that. Athenean (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• The claims of the Macedonian's alliance to Persia are tenuous. The Macedonians were largely forced into vassalage at the time because they were weak, and Alexander I supplied the Greek poleis with valuable intelligence. Not only that, but the Macedonians massacred the retreating Persians following the Battle of Plataea as the Persians made their way back to their empire. This should be mentioned. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The historicity of the "Persian massacre" has been questioned - but can certainly be mentioned. As an aside, many tribes and rulers profited masterfully from Persian rule -ie the Argeads. Your view that the Persians forced/ pillaged/ raped etc is very Heleno-/ Euro -centric. The Persian 'occupation" was a major catalyst for economic and political development, catalyzing the creation of coin currency, and was largely responsible for the infusion of east Ionic culture into the north Aegean. (Eg Hammond - Collected Studies II p 118-122)

Nothing Helenocentric or Eurocentric. Where do I say that the Persians massacred/pillaged everything (or even implied that)? I just remember reading that somewhere that Alexander supplied the poleis with intelligence during the wars and attacked the Persians as they were retreating. Anyway, this has more to do with politics than actual identity. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree

• Is there a source for the sentences "If Alexander I did indeed participate at the Olympics, there is no mention of any other Macedonians competing until Philip II, suggesting a hiatus in Macedonian-Greek interaction. Alexander's successor, Archelaus, might even have subsequently been rejected from competing. "? Again with the Olympics. It seems to me the whole thing with the Olympics is turning into something of an obsession. First it is claimed Alexander I might not even have participated in the Olympics. Then, even if he did, he might have done so only for political reasons. Now it's "no Macedonian royals after Alexander I competed, because they might have been rejected." Athenean (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes its clearly referenced to Badian, pg 36 certainly, no Macedonian appears on the lists of Olympic victores that have survived until well into the regin of Alexander the Great. I didnt think it was given undue weight here, I can re-look at it, though

It is one thing to claim that no Macedonian appears on the list of Olympic victors, it's quite another to claim that they were rejected because they were considered non-Hellenic. This is going far beyond what the source says. And anyway, I think too much space is devoted to the whole Olympic thing to begin with. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not OR it; it is Badian's claim. But I see your point, the whole Olympics thing can be shortened

Definitely. Athenean (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• "This further demontrates..." is too didactic. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a lecture. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

OK

• No mention is made of the important fact that most of the ambiguity about the Greekness of the Macedonians, comes from "A small group of patriotic Athenian orators" (Engels, Companion p. 86). I would like to include the statement form Engels, p. 84, that "Nevertheless, there was never a sharp discussion about the Greekness of the Epirotans as with the Macedonians. The main reason for this telling difference might well be the simple fact that the Epirotan ethnos never attempted to rise to the status of the hegemonial power in Greece while the Macedonians under Philip II achieved this aim." Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is; I quote However, analysis of literary texts is complicated by the fact that virtually all the sources about Macedonians are external (usually Athenian), at times non-contemporary, and potentially biased.

That's one thing, but mentioning specifically that the ambiguity about the Macedonians Hellenicity comes from a small group of patriotic Athenian orators is much more specific and to the point. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you insist, fine

Thank you. Athenean (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The quoted sentence w.r.t Epirus is certainly valid, although I am not sure what you're getting at, because the Epirotians were also regarded as barbarians, despite their Greek tongue

Doesn't matter. I think the sentence is relevant and should be added, regardless of whether Thucydides occasionally refers to the Epirotans as "barbarians" (which could mean any number of things anyway). Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not just Herodotus, and not just "occasionally", but I'd be happy to add that in

Thank you. I think it is an important point and needs to be mentioned. Athenean (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• No mention is made of the fact that "Both Hesiod and Hellanicus count the Macedonians among Greeks" (Engels, Companion p. 90). It should also be mentioned that Hesiod makes Makedon a brother of Hellen. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Engels is incorrect here. Descent form Zeus did not make one a Greek, but having been fathered by Hellen himself did. Thus "according to strict genealogical logic, [this] excludes the population that bears [Macedon’s] name from the ranks of the Hellenes (Hall) -although I added that it nevertheless implies some relationship. Many "barbarians" were fathered by Zeus, tho this did not make them Hellenes. Hesiod does not make the Macedonians Hellenes, but Helliacnums does when he aligns them with direct descent from Hellen, and brother of Aeolius.

Engels is a reliable source. It is not up to us to decide whether he is correct or incorrect or not. Hesiod makes Makedon a nephew of Hellen, so Engels' claim is not completely out-of-the-blue. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Both his and Hall's interp. should be added

• In the sentence about Hellanicus, the clause "that by this time" is OR, as it is not in source. I am rather disappointed by this, as I find it somewhat intellectually dishonest. Again the issue with the hedging that I mentioned earlier. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You're inccorrect. Hall, in Contested Ethnicities and Hellenicity highlights that earlier writers like Heliacnus did not make Makedon a direct descendent of Hellen, but the later (5th century) writer, Heliacnus, created a new variant genealogy making him son of Hellen and brother of Aeolus, thus making the Macedonians Hellenic. It is clearly sourced, so where is the intellectual dishonesty ?

Apologies about the i.d., but I just don't think the "that by this time" is sufficiently substantiated or neccesary. It's sufficient to say "The later writer Hellanicus...". Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine

• I also find the claim that "Thucydides saw the Macedonian population as barbarians." intellectually dishonest. As Engels tells us (p. 84), "Both historians [Herodotus and Thucydides] regard the Macedonians as northern Greeks, as barbarians, or as an intermediate group between pure Greeks and utter barbarians". Regarding Thucydides himself, we have "Neither in Thucydides famous excursus on Macedonia's regions and early history...is his view on the ethnic identity and Greekness of the Macedonians consistent and completely unambiguous." Notice how completely different this sounds from "Thucydides saw the Macedonians as barbarians". Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That is how Hall summarized, so again, do not (falsely) accuse me of I.D. I in fact go on to elaborate Thucydides methodology: Thucydides's classification of "barbarian" versus "Greek" operated on an analogic rather than digital basis. That is, Thucydides did not perceive Greeks and barbarians as mutually exclusive categories, rather opposite poles on a linear spectrum. He placed the Macedonians on his cultural continuum closer to barbarians than Hellenes,[137] or perhaps an intermediate category between Greeks and non–Greeks but I'd be happy to change that first line !

It would be best to say that Thucydides is "ambiguous", which I think is more correct. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not quite correct. Thucydides is not ambiguous. He is clear and consistent in that he does not see the Macedonians as "Hellenes". Herodotus', on the other hand, is ambiguous.

Engels Page 84, section 2, second paragraph, sentence 2: Both historians regard the Macedonians as northern Greeks (Hellenes), as barbarians, or as an intermediate group between pure Greeks and utter barbarias. Athenean (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding Herodotus, again we should cite Engels instead of Herodotus. As I've already mentioned, Engels states the the connection between Dorians and Macedonians is "a reliable tradition", not "a popular tradition" as the proposed addition states. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

OK

• The sentence "A host of other early historians categorized Macedonia to be outside "Hellas", and Macedonians as non-Hellenes. " is highly POV/editorial and completely unacceptable. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And why exactly is that ?? Hall, contested ethnicities wrote "A succession of early geographers and historians placed the northern frontier of Hellas to just north of Thessaly". Pg 160 But because I am obliging, we can drop the host and just leave it at "other historians also ..."

• I think the inclusion of Pseudo Scylax is a bit of a stretch here. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, hardly changes the article, certainly not very important. Again, though, this is not my creation, it is referenced in scholarly work as "evidence"

• Ditto with the Borza quote about "the Macedonians "made their mark not as a tribe of Greeks or other Balkan peoples, but as Macedonians." We've already been over that. No way. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You are going to have to provide with a clear reason here. I know Greeks don't like Borza anymore, so how about Hall To ask whether he Macedonians "really were" Greek or not in antiquity is ultimately a redundant question given the shifting semantics of Greekness between the 6th and 4th centuries BC. What cannot be denied, however, is that the cultural commodification of Hellenic identity that emerged in the 4th century might have remained a provincial artefact, confined to the Balkan Peninsula, had it not been for the Macedonians."

This highlights that the primary, and most important level of identity operating for these people was as "Macedonian". Whether the Greeks saw them as brothers or not, or whether they were "really Greek" or not, is only of secondary importance - and Borza and Hall highlight this as an all-too-forgotten aspect of Macedonian identity given all the 'debating' about their "Greekness".

Hall is fine, but I just don't see the point of the Borza quote. It's just a value judgment (i.e. POV). It doesn't add anything to the article. We've been over that already, and it's not just me objected. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Value judgement ? It is an observation - the major or prime level of Macedonian identity was "Macedonian", the rest all secondary. This is not really different that, above all, Athenians were Athenians, or Prussians were Prussians

Yet in the article on ancient Athenians, we don't say that the Athenians made their mark as Athenians, or that the Prussians as Prussiand. Why? Because it is a tautology. And besides, the Macedonians spread Attic culture to the east, not "Macedonian" culture, so I really cannot understand what is meant by Borza.

• There is also no discussion of outside perspectives on the Macedonians (e.g. by the Persians).

OK, can be added

• Regarding Polybius and Strabo, the sentence should read "such as Polybius and Strabo, did refer to the ancient Macedonians as consistently and unambiguously Greeks." Herodotus and Thucydides also sometimes refer to them as Greeks, just not consistently and unambiguously. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes for former, the latter are discussed earlier. The discussion flows according to the chonologic appearance of the witers themselves.

To sum up, while the proposed additions contain some improvements, I perceive a distinct slant running through most of the proposed additions. Reading them, I am left with the impression that the Macedonians were a non-Greek people who were subsequently hellenized (as would most readers). That seems to be the motif running throughout the proposed additions. There are also unsourced statements, dubious sources (Theodossiev), value judgments, and glaring omissions. All mention of the finds at Aiani and accompanying Britannica video have been removed, and the "made their marks as Macedonians" claim has made a comeback. Thus, there is still much work to be done before the proposed additions can be added. Athenean (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The stuff on Aiani was not removed, but included in the "Culture-Economy " section were it belongs, and the link to Britannica was kept.

The stuff on Aiani was highly distorted. The way the article reads now is not what the Britannica video says. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No it wasn;t. Black & white pottery, whatever that is, is not characteristically Greek, but is found as far as Paeonia and Phrygia. Anyway, what is its exact relevance to identity ? As you said "Identity is mostly gleaned from written sources, not archeological findings". The inscription of Themida on the pottery is better placed in language evidence, if you wish, as a specific example. The most interesting aspect of the Aiani excavation is that there was evidence of trade, or contact, between upper Macedonia and Mycenaean areas inthe 13th century - that is why I put it in the economy section.

The source is clear. We should stick with it, not interpret it however we like. Athenean (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The "motif" of Hellenization is not my creation, but the interpretation of modern writers on ancient sources (Badian, Broza, Hall, Engles, Anson) as they clearly demonstrate the evolving nature of Macedonian Identity viz-a-viz Greek. Whether "ethnic" or "cultural", they were not consistently seen as "true Greeks" until much later. And I have not slanted this in any way, but added: the very same documentary evidence can also be interpreted to have "military-political rather than ethnic connotations”, i.e. representing political antagonism and cultural xenophobia from the perspective of Athenian-centred writers. - referencing Hatzopoulos & Sourvinou-Inwood.

The "Hellenization" slant is not "the interpretation of ancient sources", it is your interpretation of the sources, and it is there and unmistakable. I do not find such a similar "Hellenization" motif when reading through the Companion. The literature is vast, and there are many ways of interpreting it. The Hellenization angle is just your interpretation, you should keep in mind that others interpret it differently. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No it is not my interpretation, but that of Badians, Halls, Borza and even the companion. Anson By the second century the literary evidence suggests that the Macedonians and their southern neighbours saw themselves and each other as Greeks.

Danforth: only with the emergence of Rome as a common enemy in the west that the Macedonians came to be regarded as "northern Greeks". This is precisely the period during which ancient authors, such as Polybius and Strabo, did refer to the ancient Macedonians as Greeks

Or Robyn Osborne, Ancient Greece, p 406; it is clear that in antiquity neither Macedonians nor Greeks considered the Macedonians to be Greek. Greeks viewed the Macedonians as barbarians like their Thracian or Illyrian neighbours {I could go on, but we get the picture)

So hardly, my interpretation. Basically, any non-Greek scholar who has analysed the issue in any substantial depth has come to this conclusion (I hardly need to quote Borza and Badian, as you're well aware of their stance). Nevertheless, in good faith, and simple fact that Hatsopoulos & Sourvinou-Inwood are RS, I added their interpretation - ie that the Macedonian ethnos was called non-Hellenes could have been cultural and antagonistic from Athenian writers. Did I not ??

Cherry-picking proves nothing. I could likewise cherry-pick through sources to come to the exact opposite conclusion [3] [4] [5]. And I could go on. Note that none of these scholars are Greek. Even Borza concedes that the Macedonians may have originated from the same ancestral population as the Greeks to the south [6]. Yet this was entirely left out. Athenean (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

To sum up, thank you for reviewing my suggestion. You have provided some very constructive feedback which should be taken on board. However, some of your accusations (somewhat characteristically) are unfounded and unfair; largely stemming from misinterpretation of evidence, or sometimes outright neglect of clearly referenced material.

Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be best if you avoided casting aspersions such as "somewhat characteristically", if you know what I mean. Btw, I hope you won't mind if I remove your latest additions until we reach an agreement (as we did before). Athenean (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, true, I should not follow your bad examples :)

Um no, if you read through my comments, I never cast aspersions on you personally, unlike as you have done. So, I hope there is going to be no repeat of this. Athenean (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Other issues I may have forgotten to mention: Some repetition (e.g. the same passage from Herodotus is repeated), too much emphasis on the Argeads, and too much emphasis on the whole Olympic thing. Athenean (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

all noted, please see in-line responces Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you have said. However, if I were you, I would be very careful about casting aspersions on "cherry-picking" sources. For one, I have not cherry picked anything, but have utilized the most up-to-date and detailed analyses on Macedonian identity viz-a-viz that of southern Greeks, 'including scholars who maintain that the Macedonians were Greeks, but simply culturally different a/p Hatzopoulos - you have not acknowledged this. Which leads onto my next point - it is rather you (or the predecessors who wrote and policed the article as it was) who have at times cherry picked sources and even mis-represented them. For example, how is the book Philip II of Macedon directly related to, or a detailed analysis on, Macedonian identity ? Moreover, there are instances of frank intellectual dishonesty, or at best, intellectual misunderstanding. Eg from the enumeration of 'consensus' sources listed in footnote 21 of the article, the sources do not say what the article claims they say. As we now all agree, the very nature of Macedonian identity was how they saw themselves, and were seen so by others. Eg John Fine clearly states - "The Greeks in general, and Demosthenes in particular, looked upon them as barbarians, that is not Greek". J Hall's Hellenicity is also misrepresented - he nowhere makes a claim that the Macedonians were viewed as Greeks, his view is quite the contrary. Similarly with Hammond, although he is one of the most vocal proponents that the Macedonians were Northwest Greeks, he writes "The Macedonians had no reason and presumably no wish to align themselves with the Greek states.Each people had its own culture, and each people was destined to develop on its own lines in accordance with its own genius and its own situation. Hostility between the two was to be expected". On top of that, we should not forget how the "ancient sources" section very conveniently omits any source which might have represented the Macedonians as non-Hellenes.

Furthermore, you have misunderstood Borza. In Macedon, he states that we might suppose, had we actually clear evidence, that there was a pool of NW Greek speakers in Macedonia since the Dark Ages, following Hammond's construction. He then goes onto (pg 70) to severely criticize Hammond's approach, and then in his later book Alexander I, goes on to say (explicitly) that, if anything, the archaeological evidence proves that the Macedonians were not originally Greek.

This is all somewhat peripheral, I am merely highlighting the inconsistencies and irony of your arguments. The message is - for the Identity section - how one interprets the archaeological or linguistic evidence is somewhat less relevant. The Identity section should confine itself to an analysis of how Greeks and Macedonians perceived each other from literary evidence available to us, despite its shortcomings. The stuff on archaeology, language, etc - I'm sure you'd agree, has been amply covered in relevant sections, and need not be repeated in the "Identity" section. And the article on Aiani belongs in the "Culture" economy section, and should not be used as a proof of anything, for if it is , one would then be obliged to include the criticisms directed at it as a piece of "nationalist archaeology" - making outlandish claims of the Greekness of Macedonians in the 13th century BC based on some sherds of pottery at one single site. For the sake of keeping the article "clean" lets use the Aiani article for more appropriate purposes.

So I am happy to make a further proposal on the identity section, taking everything we have discussed on board

Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Aiani

Why is the big fuss about Mycenaean Aiani in this article?

Currently it seems the claims are supported by Britannica, not a highly reliable source (we should use secondary sources as often as possible, especially for potentially controversial claims). Let's see some different opinions.

One study on pottery:

The excavations of recent years have produced growing evidence of Mycenaean presence all over Macedonia. The numerous Mycenaean finds indicate that Mycenaeans established settlements of some kind in this area, though the question will be the subject of future investigations and studies. The view may be upheld with regard to the area around Aiani and the middle reaches of the Aliakmon in particular, which is very close to Thessaly and would naturally have developed a network of mutual contacts and influences, as was the case in earlier periods from the Neolithic onwards (the prehistoric finds from Servia, for instance, known since 1909, and from Pondokomi slightly farther away, produced by recent investigations), as also in later periods until the historical era. 'Mycenaean presence' is a complex phenomenon and it is difficult to conclude that the prevalence of Mycenaean elements in an area is necessarily due to Mycenaean presence. (emphases mine)

Another study here. Using distributions and typologies of various artefacts, the author concludes:

Mycenaean Greece would thus include the northern part of Thessaly up to the Olympos region, whereas the Middle Aliakmonas would be already part of a different world.

and

This blending of different cultural traditions results in the hypothesis of a boundary zone located between the northern plains of Thessaly and the Aliakmonas valley. The Pieria and Chasian mountain ranges formed the geographical massive barrier between two different systems, without preventing communication among individual groups. They separated the politically, economically and socially highly stratified systems of the Mycenaean world from the small scale societies of Late Bronze Age Macedonia.

Check also the maps. Daizus (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The only mention of Mycenae in the section of the article about Aiani is that the black-and-white pottery was found with Mycenean sherds, meaning it can be dated to the 13th-14th century BC, nothing more. I don't see anything controversial about that. The remainder of the stuff on Aiani in the article has nothing to do with Mycenae or anything like that. Athenean (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I mean this paragraph:

Despite the remoteness of the upper Macedonian highlands, excavations at Aiani since 1983 have brought to light finds that attest the existence of an organised society from the 2nd millennium BC. The excavations have unearthed the oldest pieces of black-and-white pottery, characteristic of the tribes of northwest Greece, discovered so far. Found with Μycenaean sherds, they can be dated with certainty to the 14th century BC.

According to various other scholarly opinions:

• This society was not part of the Μycenaean world and did not share its cultural uniformity. The so-called "organised society from the 2nd millennium BC" was rather fragmented (Eder's study above: "archaeological evidence from Macedonia suggests small scale patterns of settlement") and primitive (idem: having "rather flat social hierarchies")
• The local pottery is not "characteristic of the tribes of northwest Greece" ([7] check the maps and the accompanying text: "[a] total of eight different stylistic groups in Late Bronze Age mattpainted pottery have been discerned in Greece and the Balkans") or in Eder's study above: "a high degree of variability in pottery production and consumption characterises the Late Bronze Age in Macedonia".

Thus I don't think the image of a Upper Macedonia characeterized by "typical Greek pottery" is fair, or at least this should be only one of the POVs presented. Daizus (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim that the society at Aiani was part of the Mycenean world. Only that the black and white pottery was found together with Mycenean sherds, making it possible to date them. "Organised society" also isn't a particularly strong claim: Most societies are organized. The article makes no claim about the degree of organization. As far as the maps go, I'm not sure what you're getting at. They mostly show finds in northern Greece. True, there are several pottery styles found in the area. But that doesn't mean that the black-and-white style isn't characteristic of the area. Athenean (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

But it claims Aiani was an organised society. To me that is a strong claim, suggesting a society with social hierarchies, with some sort of centralisation (institutional, cultural, etc), with some sort of rules and so on. [8] If your view would be correct, "organised society" is a kind of anything-goes and we have a case of WP:WEASEL. The article should either explain the organisation or otherwise get rid of meaningless and/or vague epithets.

As for the maps, they illustrate but also the accompanying text clearly states the mattpainted pottery was spread in Greece and Balkans. Thus it was not characteristic only for tribes in Greece. And the local variations suggest local characteristics. The current paragraph gives only one POV, the "Greek" (not the valley specific, nor the Balkan) character of the pottery. Daizus (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved into one of those interminable discussions over semantics, specifically the meaning of the word organized. You may think that "organized society" is a strong claim, but I don't. As far as the pottery goes, you are making the equation mattpainted=black-and-white, but the two aren't necessary the same. I could agree with you if you showed me that black-and-white pottery is characteristic of somewhere other than NW Greece, but so far I see no evidence of that. Athenean (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You have to show that the sources support the points of view you add in the text. Your second ref discusses mattpainted pottery, not black-and-white pottery. Thus I'm not making the equation, I'm reading the sources, apparently you don't. Daizus (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed Karamitrou-Mentessidi. By the way, "organized society" is definitely not weasel wording. You might want to check WP:WEASEL again. Also, please indent your comments using ":". Athenean (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what weasel words are? Regarding the MOS, you should also check the section on euphemisms. Definitely it's not encyclopedic content.

Removing the source makes it worse. We have already several studies listed here on the mattpainted pottery discovered at Aiani, however the article ignores all that only to quote a tertiary source (Britannica) on black-and-white pottery. Daizus (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know what weasel words are. I don't see "organized society" listed anywhere in WP:WEASEL. Nor is it a euphemism. You might find it too strong a claim, but that doesn't mean it's weasel or a euphemism. Your claim that it's not encyclopedic content is odd, since it's from Britannica, which last time I checked was an encyclopedia. Also, feel free to re-add Karamitrou-Mentessidi or any other sources you want and modify the article accordingly, don't let me stop you. And would you please learn to indent your comments? Athenean (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I now see you changed the weasel-wording template with a dubious template, which, though I don't necessarily agree with, is at least more appropriate. Athenean (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

My comments are indented just fine.

"Organized society" is an euphemism (a local pottery production center is organization?) and weasel wording (ok, not according to the policy addressing vague attributions, but according to the mainstream usage of the term: it is a vague and unverifiable statement).

The source is not an article from Britannica, and even so, Britannica is not flawless. See also WP:RS. "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. " and "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Daizus (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No, your comments are absolutely not indented just fine. See WP:INDENT. There is no "mainstream usage of the term" (i.e. whatever everybody wants it to mean), only policy. If it's not weasel-wording per policy, then the template is unwarranted. And the claim is 100% verifiable, see WP:V. You might disagree with it, but that doesn't mean it's unverifiable. Britannica is not the best source around, but it is good enough. We use it throughout the encyclopedia. But like I said, if you have other, better sources to add to the article, don't let me stop you. I don't really see the point of continuing this discussion anyway, so I think I'm done here. Athenean (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my comments are indented fine (outdented not to go too deep making these verbose replies hard to be read).

I changed the inline template, your comments are moot. It's not a verifiable claim per WP:V because you didn't explain (and you refused to explain) what "organized society" is. Britannica is not good enough per WP:RS, we must use the available secondary sources, and we must not use tertiary sources for arguments, especially for controversial ones. Basically you're doing WP:GAME to defend pro-Greek POVs.

I will add content once I have a better understanding. I don't like to add content using sources I haven't read, unlike other editors here. Daizus (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add:

The "organized society" issue- i do not have a problem with it. Who is to say what is "organized" ? And, as more and more studies come to light, we are now seeing that the northern periphery (ie Macedonia) was not just a bunch of roaming barbarians, they did have some element of "organization", although certainly nothing we could compare to Mycenae, Knosssos, etc

The paper by Karamitrou-Mentessidi is unfortunately chauvanistic, as Borza rightly remarked in Before Alexander.

I think there might be a confusion with terminology. Matt painted pottery is "black and white', and is the usual name employed by other authors is Matt painted pottery

Athenean, I think your later addition The inscriptions demonstrate that Hellenism in Upper Macedonia was at a high economic, artistic, and cultural level by the 6th century. I think this is a stretch. Whilst I in no way doubt that western Macedonia had contacts with southern Greece in the 6th century, and even spoke predominantly Greek, how does one pot with the inscription Themida prove that Hellenism (a subjective, almost indefinable feeling) was at a "high level". I think we'd best address that sentence.

I've already read the articles pointed out by Dazius (which are written by Greek scholars for the most part, and are quite good and impartial). They demonstrate that Matt Painted pottery doesn't necessarily imply that its users spoke Greek, let alone identified as such. As a matter of fact, it could be argued that there were no "Hellenes" to speak of in the 13th century, whether in Macedonia, Attica or the Argolid. (as per Hall)

What the Matt painted wares at Aiani do show, is that there was cultural koinon of pottery decoration & style of a middle Helladic tradition which persisted in western Greece, western Macedonia and further north in the Balkans after it had already gone out of use in eastern Greece. This koinon thus underlies contacts amongst the communities of western Greece and western central Balkan area, and potentially, some kind of identity by its users. {and this contrasts to central Macedonia (ie coastal Pieria, Thermaic region and western Chalkidike) which rather had links with Pelagonia, Paeonia, SW Thrace and coastal Thessaly; hardly a surprising pattern, I;m sure you'd agree}

In the end, however, almost an entire paragraph on the finds of one site is perhaps UNDUE, despite its interesting features. And, we should either take it back a notch (about its signifying "Hellenism"), or we should also include the criticisms levelled directly at the article and its authors intentions behind it. No one wants this, and it will merely make the article ugly.

Another thing, Athenean, whilst your addition of the parallel of the Macedonian gold masks with those of the Myceneans is certainly valid, and your sourcing correct, you have not mentioned that the Macedonian masks do not actually derive, nor were they inspired by, Mycenean masks. When such masks were in use in Mycenaean Greece, Macedonia had an altogether different burial rite (which did not include masks). When places like Vergina, Trebenishte, Sindos, etc began using such masks in the 6th century, they had already been ceased in southern Greece for over 500 yrs. A 500 yr discontinuity, is a rather important distinction to make, I would think ?

In fact chaps, may I propose I slight re-do on the "culture" section. I suggest we keep society and religion, and separate the 'economy' into an "archaelogical background" section, or something to that effect. Obviously, this shouldn't be too long, for the ancient history of Maceodnia (region) would be a more appropriate page for a lengthy expansion. (There is a plethora of new papers I have recently collected). I'd be happy to jot it down here first {Athenean - do we have an actual article dating the Themida inscription to the 5th century, as opposed to a link to the on-line Britannica video? I;m not doubting it, I;d just like to have something 'harder')

Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear I'm not the only one who doesn't think "organised society" is such a strong claim. As far as the "Hellenism" claim, I am just following the Britannica video, nothing more. I did a bit of a search and also found this [9]. It's not just a single pot with "ΘΕΜΙΔΑ" written οn it: Kouroi statues, Archaic tablets, and it's not just the Britannica video. I could consult the literature more in depth, but will not have database access till monday at least. I also think a brief mention that Upper Macadonia was in the Greek cultural sphere in the 6th-5th centuries BC is not too much of a stretch or undue. Regarding the similarities with Mycenean burials, I just followed Whitley as closely as I could, nothing more. If you want to claim that the Macedonian gold masks were not inspired or derived from the Mycenean ones, you will need a source for that, otherwise it is OR. Also remember, the gold masks are just one facet of the warrior burials. There are other things, like weapons. As Whitley makes clear, the warrior burials in southern and central Greece continued until well into the 8th century BC. I don't know for sure when similar warrior burials began in Macedonia, but it seems to me it must have been at least since the Bronze Age. Even if warrior burials began there later, there is no 500 year gap. What I'm guessing is that such warrior burials were common throughout the Balkans (including southern Greece) in the Bronze Age. For whatever reason, such burials were discontinued in southern and central Greece (possibly due to Near Eastern and/or Egyptian influence, to which southern Greece, with its more southerly location and longer coastline would have been more open to compared to the more "bakcward" central Balkans?), but now in the central Balkans. So I don't think the statement is too much of a stretch, and it is solidly sourced to Whitley as you said. As far as re-writing the "Economy" section, I don't think a full blown re-write is necessary. It is already de-facto an "archeology" section. If you do write something up, the thing to keep in mind would be to focus on the ancient Macedonians per se, instead of the region of Macedonia as a whole (which was peopled by many other peoples). Lastly, regarding Engels: Sorry, but I followed him extremely closely, and my wording is more true to the source than yours, hence I reverted you (and how the Epirotes were regarded by Strabo is somewhat beyond the scope of this article. Athenean (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well of course I can provide sources to back the claim that Macedonian masks didn't derive from Mycenaean ones (I didn;t dream it up). But its not a huge issue anyway, and I was referring solely to the masks. I might add a clarifying sentence at some point later. "Warrior burials" did indeed continued throughout central-southern Greece into Archaic Period. The only issue is the sentence Hellenism was at a high cultural level sentence in the "economy" section. This looks like a value judgement, and a rather crude understanding of archaeological material, from a less than ideal source (Brittanica); nor is it clear exactly as to what it refers to by "Hellenism" ? I think that sentence needs re-work to simply ;-> The findings negate previous conceptions that Upper Macedonia was culturally and socially isolated from southern Greece.

I only added the stuff on Epirotes to clarify what might have otherwise been a misleading sentence. If anything, the Epirotes were considered more barbarian, and for longer than the Macedonians. I totally agree that it is not the primary scope of the article, but if you're going to inlcude them in the discussion, and place a statement which might not be quite true (irrespective of how RS the source itself is), then I'd think one is obliged to clarify the viewpoint. Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Whitley says that the Macedonian gold masks were "of a type that would not be out of place in the shaft graves of Bronze Age Mycenae" [http://www.amazon.com/Archaeology-Ancient-Greece-Cambridge-World/dp/0521627338/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301123026&sr=1-1#reader_0521627338]. I do not think that it is necessary to add a sentence that they did not derive from the Mycenean ones; rather I would find that somewhat tendentious. Anyway, the gold masks are minor point like you said. There are other things like burial with weapons, etc...As far as the "Hellenism" claim, since you don't like it, we could replace it with something like "Recent archeological finds at Aiani show that Upper Macedonia in the 6th century BC was in the Greek cultural orbit (Kouroi statues, inscriptions bearing Greek names like ΘΕΜΙΔΑ, etc); The finding negate previous...", sourced to [10]. It is important to mention the time period (6th century BC) and location (Upper Macedonia). As far as the Epirote thing goes, it is not up to us to judge if a source is "right" or "wrong": Engels is a top notch source, and that's all that matters. Anyway, I kept most of your changes. However, I don't see how mentioning that Strabo viewed the Epirotes as barbarians clarifies the point; rather I think it confuses it. We could just as easily mention that Herodotus and Pausanias regarded them as Greeks. Best not to get into that. Athenean (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestions. Nice pic addition, too Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Love and Family

After reading about the "With this or on it," "Because we are the only ones to give birth to " real-men Spartans, who were beaten by 300 gays from Thebes, it would be nice to know if there were any new love angle explaining why it was the Macedonians who eventually turned out victorious. About the only mention of their family and love life is that the Macedonians were periodically debauched. Is anything knowong of love and family in ancient Macedonia? What was the love that enabled the Macedonians to be so great? Debauchery? Come to think of it, the Romans, who beat the lot of them, were known for having been into a bit of that.--Timtak (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What's your point dude ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

On images

The mythological genealogy tree is completely useless and redundant, as that is already described in the text. The choice of using Hesiod is also POV and arbitrary. Why not use the genealogy of Hellanicus. Also, I would much prefer the Georgiev map be reinstated, perhaps in the language section. I see no valid grounds for its removal. It covers the area which this article describes as the territory of the ancient Macedonians. Athenean (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexikoua's map, sourced to Georgiev

The genealogical tree is not redundant. It is simple pictorial explanation of an authors work and a quick reference, like with any image. According to your argument, then, all images are useless because what they are depicting will inevitably have been discussed in the main text; including the language map here based on Georgiev, because "completely useless and redundant, as that is already described in the text". If you want, I could also add Heliacnus' interpolation.

Whilst I commend Alexikoua for the effort, the map is not quite correct. Therefore its worth in the article is brought into doubt. On the other hand, if we had a better linguistic map, I would certainly support such an inclusion. To elaborate why:

(a) Leaving aside that it is rather spurious to create a map of linguistic "borders", the work is actually OR and not modelled exactly on an actual map, but rather an editors incorrect interpretation of Georgiev's position:

(b)It illustrates that during the 3rd century, proto-Greek was spoken over a wide area of Nth Aegean- from the Ionian Sea to the Chalkidike. Georgiev, however states specifically that Study of toponyms shows clearly that this (proto-Greek) region lay approximately in northwest Greece. The map is showing a little more than NW Greece; and "NW Greece" has a specific, well-known geographic connotation, not to mention that no serious scholar has included most of Macedonia and Chalkidike as part of proto-Greek region, these have been distinctly a Phrygian or Thracian "homeland".

(c) Georgiev states Macedonian and Greek are descended from a common Greek-Macedonian idiom that was still spoken till about 2500 BC. This is neither what our map says, nor illustrates.

With such major problems, I think we'd be obliged to remove it until it is amended or a better alternative arrives (as we have done with other articles). 10:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The map is cited by Georgiev, who gives detailed descriptions about the Proto-Greek area: southern boundary is in the Pineios-Acheloos line, it includes Epirus (up to Aulon: incorporating Acroceraunian and Pindus), and corresponds in general with today's Northwestern and Northern Greece. This sounds to be in accordance with the Indo-European (Kurgan) hypothesis, in which Georgiev and other specialists believe (Hammond etc.).Alexikoua (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, sounds like your OR. Can you please clarify what Georgiev states exactly from your source, becuase the article I have from him The Genesis of the Balkan Peoples, he states explicitly the proto-Greek homeland was in Epirus, nothing about modern northeast Greece, and that Macedonian was related to Greek, not derived from it. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I took the trouble to get Georgiev's book you cited. Like the article I cited, it says (pg 156) The proto-greek region included Epirus, approx up to ...., and west and north Thessaly, ie more or less the territory of contemporary NW Greece.

On Macedonia: he states that "macedonian must have very closely related to greek" during the 4th millenium BC (!) but with time became even more remote from greek.

This is not in keeping with your map

Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not only NW Greece but it incorporates "the whole of northern and north-western Greece, " (based on Georgive's linguistic grounds). So, I feel that the Proto-Greek area should incorporate the region west of Strymon river. By the way the area doesn't include north-eastern Greece.Alexikoua (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, you haven't even read either book, that is the risk one runs when you scramble for snippets of info via Google Books - you have missed the woods for the trees. In both sources you give, which are both the works of Georgiev, he clearly states that the proto-Greek 'homeland' is in Epirus +/- western/ northern Thessaly, not Macedonia or the Chalkidike. Where you've become confused is that he says that certain archaic Greek hydronyms and an absence of pre-hellenic names are also found over a wider area of what is now northern Greece. However, he is 'explicit when talking specifically to the proto-Greek area.

So I'd be careful with your pushing, for you are clearly approaching [11]

((For your own learning, I'd look to "the question 'Where did the Greeks come from?' is meaningless. We can only begin to speak of Greek after the formation of the Greek language as a recognizable, distinct branch of Indo-European; and I gave reasons for believing that this process took place inside Greece during the first half of the second millennium B.C." (p. 254). Wyatt and other linguists agree with Chadwick that, given the observed rate of change in the Greek language in historical times, it is impossible to push its prehistoric development back further than the mid-second millennium B.C. The slow and seemingly authochthonous development of Mycenaean civilization is the most striking archaeological event of this" [American Journal of Archaeology].))

Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems you can't understand that the whole of northern Greece (per Georgiev) incorporates a major part of Greek Macedonia. I suggest you revert yourself, since you ignored this fact. Also please avoid this hypothetical snippet abbuse issue by my side. Unfortunately I have full access on both works of him (please don't remove full cited parts) and it seems you are into deep or territory by assuming that 3rd millenium BC Macedonia was Proto-Thracian territory per Georgiev.Alexikoua (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Apart from being unable to understand the georgaphic term 'northern Greece', which was part of the Proto-Greek area, Georgiev states that the geographic region of Pieria is also part of it. Also this map is based, as stated, on Georgiev's reconstruction not Wyatt's or Cadwick's.Alexikoua (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, it is not my intention to argue with you for the sake of it. I respect your contributions. However, my objections are justified. Georgiev explicitly describes where the proto-Greek area is: and I quote : "The proto-Greek region included Epirus, approximately up to Aὕλῴν in the north including Paravaia, Tymphaia, Athamania, Dolopia, Amphilocia and Acarnania, west and north Thessaly (Hestiaitotis, Perrhaibaia, Tripolis and Pieria), ie more or less the territory of northwest Greece. " [Pg 156]

It is not up to you or I to interpret what he might or might not have otherwise meant, especially when he spells it out for us in simple, plain English. On Macedonia, pg 170 he explicitly titles it The Mixed Character of the Macedonian Toponymy. What more is there to argue ? Slovenski Volk 13:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The claim, per Georgiev, that this area included northern Greece for a period somewhere in the 3rd mil. BC doesn't exclude that diferrent peoples settled there during the entire Bronze Age. Actually per Indoeuropean theory, the IE tribes descended south. In accordance of this theory these Proto-Greek speaking peoples were located in n. Greece and then moved south. For example, another supporter of the IE theory, Hammond, claims that "it is principally from this area of Albania, western Macedonia, and north Epirus that the Greek-speaking peoples moved in successive waves during the Bronze Age into what we know as Greek lands.". I suppose it's easy to present both Hammond's and Georgiev's claims on the same map.Alexikoua (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You have a point, I will revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.163.104 (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As above, Georgiev is clearly referring to Thessaly as Northern Greece. If you want to include the map, reconstruct it to only include Pieria and Perrhaibai, then sure, included it by all means. And you just contradicted yourself again - hammond states western Macedonia. Not all Macedonia, nor Chalkidike Slovenski Volk (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, good point — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.233.112 (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If Georgiev is referring to Thessaly as approximately "the whole of northern Greece" this is doubtfull, especially when he clearly includes areas north of Thessaly such as Pieria. Also please do not pretend that I'm contradicting myself, the map doesn't include all of Macedonia but approximately the western part. However, I will look into it to make some minor changes.Alexikoua (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. Its simple, just follow his quote and you'll be right. I;m sure you know your Greek geography better than most people. The proto-Greek region included Epirus, approximately up to Aὕλῴν in the north including Paravaia, Tymphaia, Athamania, Dolopia, Amphilocia and Acarnania, west and north Thessaly (Hestiaitotis, Perrhaibaia, Tripolis and Pieria), ie more or less the territory of northwest Greece.

This means, you need to remove Bottiaea, Almopia, Pelagonia, Eordaea, Elimeia, and certainly the Chalkidike/ Mygdonia region. Amend your map to reflect this and I'll support its inclusion Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I put one based on what Georgiev described . See what you think Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately your map appeas to be completely wrong per Georgiev,

1. its completely anachronistic since until the end of the 3rd century BC proto-Greek and Proto-Macedonian was part of the same idiom [[12]]
2. Georgiev states clear that the proto-Greek region incorporates northern Greece (unless you believe that the northern borders of Greece lie today somewhere in Thessaly).
3. Epirus which is part of this region mysteirously doesn't include a considerable part of the Pindus mountain range.

Unfortunately it seems that a specific author who is specialist on the subject (Georgiev),is completely misused in order to draw wp:or, unhistorical maps in order to promote a large scale edit war.Alexikoua (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Come on, there's no need for BS. You have not once provided a direct quote from Georgiev in this whole discussion to support the boundaries depicted by your map, have you ?

I, on the other hand, have, repeatedly. My map impeccably adheres to exactly what Georgiev describes and what the map itself claims to depict.

You have not shown a direct quote to prove that Georgiev describes the "proto-Greek homeland' as the northern modern Greece. Georgiev describes the proto-Greek area in Pieria as the northernmost. So why does your map have it up to Pelagonia and Mygdonia ? ?

In fact, your map actually depicts what Georgiev describes as the Greco-Macedono-Phrygian group during the mid 3rd millenium or early 2nd mill. So it would be reasonable to keep your map if we correctly label it to what it realy represents Slovenski Volk (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems something is really weird in this discussion. I've provided several quotes from Georgiev, but mysteriously they are ignored. To sum up,

• the features of the Proto-Greek area are met in an area that is approximately the whole of northwestern and northernGreece (and off course Thessaly isn't northern Greece)
• The Proto-Phrygian region is in northern Macedonia in the basin of Crna_(river) [[13]]
• The map I've created doesn't include Pelagonia, but about Migdonia, it seems that other supporters of the indoeuropean theory don't aggre with this (just excluded Mygdonia and Chalkidike)
• Settlements like Argos Orestikon, Gonoi, Servia, Vergina are confirmed as parts of this area (by Georgiev and Hammond), but in your map they are either proto-Phrygian or (anachronistically) Proto-Macedonian.Alexikoua (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The natural border between the proto-Greek and the proto-Thracian languages in North-East, was the river Axios. The map needs small correction in this part. Jingby (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexi, Thessaly is northern Greece. Check your compass. It is clear what Gerogiev means by northern Greece - The region north of this line, which comprises EPirus as far as Aulon, in the north (including Paravaia, Tymphgaea, Athamania, Dolopia, Amphilochia, Acarnania), western and northern Thessaly and Pieria ie approx whole northern and north-western Greece. Georgiev is explicit where he envisiages the proto-Greek area to be. Your interpretation is therefore neither called for, nor correct. Your map is useful for what he described in the 3rd Mill - the Greco-Macedonian(-Phyrgian) intermediate group. But the legens shoudl read the proposed 'G-M linguistic area in 3rd millenium, not "proto-greek' (coz Georgiev clearly treates the proto-Macedonian area seperately) Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please SV, I think you have crossed trolling teritory, by assuming that Thessaly is approximatelly the whole of northern Greece. For future reference the borders of Greece are in Gevgeliy, ca. 150 kms north and this is in central Macedonia. If you claim that everything north of Thessaly isn't Greece but belongs to another state, I'm sorry that's not the right project to discuss it. Also the region of Pieria doesn't coicide with the Peripheral unit of Pieria, but with a large proportion of western Macedonia, which includes the Pierian mountains, Vergina etc..Alexikoua (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Modern Geography 101 Lesson, Alexi. I appreciate that. I know where modern political Greece is. May I suggest, tho, that you also read references clearly and do not OR them according to your personal interpretation or visions. Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

People, what are you still discussing about here? I suppose it's still about File:Proto Greek Area reconstruction.png. The only concrete description I've seen cited to the Georgiev source that purportedly supports this map is the bit quoted on Proto-Greek language: "The Proto-Greek region included Epirus, approximately up to Αυλών in the north including Paravaia, Tymphaia, Athamania, Dolopia, Amphilochia, and Acarnania), west and north Thessaly (Hestiaiotis,, Perrhaibia, Tripolis, and Pieria), i.e. more or less the territory of contemporary northwestern Greece)". Is that all? If that's what the map purports to show, it seems clear to me that it shows the region stretching too far to the north-east, into Macedonia. Am I missing something? Alexikoua, can you please explain, with clear and explitly quoted references, what in Georgiev's description justifies inclusion of half of Macedonia right up to Lake Prespa, the Voras Mountains and Thessaloniki, when the description apparently mentions Pieria as the north-easternmost bit? – Please be precise in your answer; your habit of evading issues with irrelevancies is annoying. By the way, I have repeatedly heard you use the expression "the Indo-European theory". What exactly do you mean by this? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to get a hold of Georgiev's book so that I can get to the bottom of this. Athenean (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I’ve created this map Georgiev is relatively more precise by drawing 3rd mil. BC linguistic areas related to others (like Hammond), however specific regions are still under question, so on the one hand he claims that ie approximate the whole of northern Greece (obviously the northern limits of n Greece are not in Aliakmon) is part of the proto-Greek region but on the other hand the entire context makes the delineation confusing: (part of: Crossland, G.I. (1974). The arrival of the Greeks in Greece: the linguistic evidence. Noyes Press. pp. 243–253. ISBN 9780815550228.)

The pre-Hellenic place-names … are entirely absent north of a line formed by the rivers Achelous and Peneius. The region of this line, which comprises Epirus as far as Aulon, in the north (including Paravaia, Tymphaea, Athamania, Dolopia, Amphilochia and Acarnania), western and northern Thessaly (Hestiaeotis, Perrhaebia, Tripolis) and Pieria, i.e. approximately the whole of northern and north-western Greece, is characterized by the following features. (list of toponyms and etymologies follows).

Absence of pre-Hellenic place-names. Names of the types which we have been considering north of the line of the Achelous and the Peneius on the maps referred to are: Sabylinthos and Salynthios; these are not true place-names but names of persons, probably of Thracian origin. Phauttos, in north-eastern Thessaly is a false form used in place of Phaistos. All the original names north of the line are of archaic Greek origin: for example:

Epeiros, Khaonia, Kammania, Arktanes, Oresteia-Orestai, Paloeis, Kokytos, Akheron, Keraunia ore, Lynkos-Lynkeai, Olympos, Pindos, Onkhesmos, Euroia, Boukhetos, Drys, Kharadra, Thessalia, Lethaios, Dolikhe

Thus, in the region just above, roughly northern and north-western Greece, one finds only archaic Greek place-names. Consequenstly, this is the proto-Hellenic area, the early homeland of the Greeks where they lived before they invaded central and southern Greece. Since Greek place-names are very dense in that region and they have a very archaic appearance, once may suppose that the proto-Greeks were settled in it during many centuries and even millennia..

There is a contradiction since on the one hand he names briefly the sub-regions of Epirus, Thessaly and finally Pieria (suppose he doesn't mean the modern administrative regions but the geographic-historic regions), but on the other hand it labels this region as approximatelly the north of N & NW Greece. After a quick check in the list of toponyms he includes names of regions north of Aliakmon: so we have [[[14]] Orestis (modern Kastoria region) and [[15]] Lyncestis (modern Bitola region). Further checking the list of toponyms the Chaonian inland in Epirus is also supposed to be part of Georgiev's proto-Greek too (part of Khaonia). Taking this under account I have 2 proposals:

• redrawing the northern limits of the region as follows: Vlore-Chaonia-Pindus (the northern boundaries lie somewhere north of Grammos)- Orestis (s. of Prespa)- Lyncestis (e. of Prespa) - (excluding Voras mountains) - Pierian mountains - Aliacmon -Thermaic - (exluding Axios).
• replacing the supposed proto-Greek area by placing dots on every topo/hydro/oronym from Georgiev's long list.

I would prefer the dotted map.Alexikoua (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You have now quoted two passages from different publications. They sound similar but aren't apparently identical. In the one you have quoted on the Proto-Greek language page, from Introduction to the history of the Indo-European languages, it says quite clearly "The Proto-Greek region included ...", and then gives a description that is of a markedly smaller area than the one you show. About the other passage, and the context where he lists some toponyms, you have not provided enough context to judge whether he is in fact describing the same "Proto-Greek region", and whether any mention of a placename in that list automatically entails inclusion in such an area. Since we've only got snippets from that discussion, the only clean solution is to provide a map that scrupulously follows the one passage where he unambiguously describes what we are supposed to be describing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As I have been maintaining the whole time, Georgive is clear and explicit where he envisiages his pr/Gk homeland. That cerrtain areas north of that might also contain Gk toponyms doesnt extend the Gk homeland. He attributes similarities of Gk toponyms in Macedonia to the actual Gk homeland due to his position that Macedonian and Greek were one langauge in M 3. However, he clearly defines proto/Macedonian as its own "ethnic" sub/region, due to its also containing non/Greek forms. Alexi feels that I am impplying something negative by stating that by northern Greece, Georgiev clearly means Thessaly. There is no confusion / simply follow Georgiev's very words, which he has consitently maintained in The Genesis of Balkan Peoples article, his book on Intro to IE, and his article in Aegean migrations in Bronze Age. In case it was not clear the first 20 times, let 's repeat his exact description "The Proto-Greek region included Epirus, approximately up to Αυλών in the north including Paravaia, Tymphaia, Athamania, Dolopia, Amphilochia, and Acarnania), west and north Thessaly (Hestiaiotis,, Perrhaibia, Tripolis, and Pieria)". Essentially, the map does not represent what it claims it does, nor does it actually follow the alleged source. (SV)

I do not yet have the book, but based on the above description, I would say that including the Prespes region, the area near Mount Voras (Lynkestis) and the mouth of the Axios is a bit of stretch. However, since the description includes Tymphaia, Perrhaebea and Pieria, a straight line drawn from the Avlon to the mouth of the Haliakmon should do it. Keep in mind that ancient Pieria stretches a bit north of the current preferecture of Pieria, and includes the area of Aegae. Athenean (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with this version, with the exeption of Orestis and Lyncestis which it seems were part of this area according to G..Alexikoua (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Georgiev has drawn a map of proto-Greek and proto-Macedonian areas (Map 2 in ´´Intro..´´). The defined regions are as I have copied in my map. If we wan to construct a map ´´ourselves´´ based on his description of a Greco-Macedonian-(Phrygian) dialectical continuum or subgroup in the 3rd Mill, then it would be fine to include areas farther north, as long as the map is labelled on the legend itself the proposed G-M-P subgroup linguistic area and not labelled as the ´proto-Greek area´. (SV)

SV's Georgiev map created June 10 (left) and June 21 (right).

@SV: Which one of your two maps is the real Georgiev's? Something very weird is that on both maps "Pelagonia" is placed on the wrong place (se of Prespa instead of ne).Alexikoua (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting Alexi, I will make a slight amendation when I get back to Australia from Europe. Regards (SV) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.7.55.112 (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)