Ancient and Medieval Macedonian History

Robin Lane Fox as regards ancient Macedonia and FYROM name issue

2011-10-12T14:39:00.001+03:00

The lasting legacy of Alexander the Great in Afghanistan

2011-08-20T12:03:00.005+03:00

Pr. Johannes Engels as regards the ancient Macedonian language

2011-08-08T23:14:00.000+03:00

Source: " Companion to Ancient Macedonia", page 95

FYROM Statues: From ethno-cultural nationalism to National Chauvinism

2011-07-11T20:22:00.005+03:00

With the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, the ruling ideology of Marxism-Leninism was replaced by different ideological forces. One of them was nationalism. In FYROM, gradually and with the "withdrawal" of the Socialists in the various state power positions, the far right through the VMRO began to take their places. So we have from the late 90's a gradual transformation of rampant ethno-cultural nationalism, into an explosion of national chauvinism (see Andrew Heynwood, political ideologies, 2007).

The extreme nationalist hysteria that exists on these days between the Slavmacedonians, because of the erection of two statues (one is giant) at the center of Skopje is a typical example. The far-right Prime Minister Gruevski, continuing the "antiquisation policy" of the Slavic population, made the next step and the Slavmacedonism enfold the "national chauvinism".

National chauvinism breeds from a feeling of intense, even hysterical nationalist enthusiasm. The individual as a separate, rational being is swept away on a tide of patriotic emotion, expressed in the desire for aggression, expansion and war. The right-wing French nationalist Charles Maurras (1868-1952) called such intense patriotism “integral nationalism”: individuals and independent groups lose their identity within an all-powerful 'nation', which has an existence and meaning beyond the life of any single individual. (Heynwood:165) Such militant nationalism is often accompanied by...

militarism. Military glory and conquest are the ultimate evidence of national greatness and have been capable of generating intense feelings of nationalist commitment.

So therefore, with the “statues project”, Gruevski regime is trying to admonish the Slavic population, by the martial values of absolute loyalty, complete dedication and willing self-sacrifice. When the honour or integrity of the nation is in question, the life of ordinary citizens become unimportant is one of the main points of the national chauvinism. (Heynwood:165)

National chauvinism has a particularly strong appeal for the isolated and powerless, for which nationalism offers the prospect of security, self-respect and pride. Militant or integral nationalism requires a heightened sense of belonging to a distinct national group. Such intense nationalist feeling is often stimulated by 'negative integration', the portrayal of another nation or race as a threat or an enemy.(Heynwood:165

In the face of the enemy, the nation draws together and experiences an intensified sense of its own identity and importance. Slavmacedonian national chauvinism arise with a clear distinction between "them" (Bulgarians and Greeks) and "Us”. National chauvinism therefore breeds from a clear distinction between 'them' and 'us'. There has to be a 'them' to deride or hate in order to forge a sense of 'us'. In politics, national chauvinism has commonly been reflected in racialist ideologies, which divide the world into an 'in group' and an 'out group', in which the 'out group' becomes a scapegoat for all the misfortunes and frustrations suffered by the 'in group'. It is therefore no coincidence that chauvinistic political creeds are a breeding ground for racialist ideas. (Heynwood:166) Far right-wing VMRO party of Gruevski builds on this national chauvinism. For the Slavmacedonians, are the Greeks who steal theirs “ancient” history and the Bulgarians theirs language.

All forms of nationalism address the issue of identity. Whatever political causes nationalism may be associated with, it advances these on the basis of a sense of collective identity, usually understood as patriotism. For the political nationalist, 'objective' considerations such as territory, religion and language are no more important than 'subjective' ones such as will, memory and patriotic loyalty. Nationalism, therefore, not only advances political causes but also tells people who they are: it gives people a history, forges social bonds and a collective spirit, and creates a sense of destiny larger than individual existence. (Heynwood:154)

Certain forms of nationalism, however, are less closely related to overtly political demands than others. This particularly applies in the case of Slavmacedonian ethno-cultural nationalism. Cultural nationalism is a form of nationalism that emphasises the strengthening or defence of cultural identity over overt political demands. Slavmacedonian ethno-cultural nationalists view the state as a peripheral if not an alien entity. So the statue of the Great Alexander in the center of capital, in an direct way, it provides attractive elements to propagate, shamelessly, their territorial fantasies over the Greek northern regions. Also it aims at expanding the boundaries of the historical “taktovina” (fatherland) of the “Makedonci” to include wide regions of Greece and Bulgaria. It is well known, that for decades the classrooms and school textbooks of history in FYROM have been adorned with maps portraying Macedonia’s “geographic and ethnic”, i.e. Slavic boundaries extending all the way to Mount Olympus and Chalkidiki, in Greek Macedonia as well as to the Pirin district of Bulgaria. ( see : Macedonianism, FYROM'S Expansionist Designs against Greece, 1944-2006, Society for Macedonian Studies, 2007 ) Now, by claiming the patrimony of the Ancient Macedonians via the statue of a Greek historical person,, the boundaries of “Greater Macedonia” assume a much wider historical and cultural dimension in time.

Unfortunately, Slavmacedonian national chauvinism is obvious that it is a road without return. Wherever you look in history, where he was a national chauvinism, we have explosions similar movements such as Pan-Slavism, anti-Semitism and Pan-Germanism. It is therefore obvious, that the FYROM Slavmacedonism from an ethno-cultural nationalism has transform to the dangerous of the regional peace, national chauvinism.

FYROM's 'warrior' monument infuriates Greece and shows clear the 'archaisation policy' of the Slavmacedonians

2011-06-19T22:37:00.000+03:00

A statue of a 'warrior on horseback' resembling Alexander the Great, currently being erected in the centre of FYROM capital Skopje, has sparked fury in Greece, which warned that Skopje was gambling with its EU membership aspirations with such provocations.
FYROM, an impoverished EU candidate country, has reportedly spent several million euros on the statue of a Hellenic warrior resembling known images of Alexander the Great, a king of Macedon from the fourth century BC who built the largest empire in ancient history. Macedon was a small empire which under Alexander's reign extended its power to the central Greek city-states and even as far as the Himalayas.
Anticipating fury from Athens, the government in Skopje dropped....
plans to name the statue after Alexander the Great, the local press reported. Instead, the monument, which is still being assembled in a central Skopje square, is officially referred to as 'the warrior on horseback'.

Nevertheless, this did not prevent a Greek government spokesperson from labelling the artistic effort "risible" and directly accusing Slavmacedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski of "making provocations to avoid reality".

Greek Foreign Ministry spokesman Gregory Delavekouras said that under other conditions, his country would be "honoured by the decision of the government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to spend nearly €10 million to honor Alexander the Great, placing a statue of the Greek army commander in a central square in Skopje".

"But the 'archaisation policy' that this action is part of is […] essentially based on the effort to usurp Greek history with a view to cultivating nationalism and conflict," he claimed.

Delavekouras also stressed that the statue project undermined bilateral relations and was hampering negotiations, led by the UN, to find a solution to the long-standing name dispute pitting Athens against Skopje (see 'Background').

Greece, NATO, EU and UN, does not recognise FYROM by its constitutional name.

"While Greece is pursuing the achievement of a solution consistently and in a constructive spirit, Mr. Gruevski is making provocations to avoid reality, undercutting his fellow citizens' European future. He needs to get back to reality right now and work sincerely and seriously towards achieving a solution. Otherwise, he will bear responsibility for his country's back-sliding," Delavekouras warned.

The Greek official added that Athens would inform its partners and allies, as well as international organisations, of this provocative action. He warned that consequences should be expected with regard to "FYROM's Euroatlantic perspective".

Macedonia-Evidence

2011-05-17T17:57:00.001+03:00

This book contains material taken from the Website http://macedonia-evidence.org/ which includes the letter to President of the United States Barack Obama, supportedby by well-known scholars of Graeco-Roman Antiquity from universities, research centers and academic institutions around the world. The impetus for this task arose from the dispute between Greece and the FYROM for the name "Macedonia" which produced and disseminated misinformation and inaccuracies concerning ancient Macedonia and its king Alexander the Great. Scholars well-known for their expertise in Graeco-Roman antiquity have formed an ad hoc group to present, examine, and discuss the historical evidence concerning ancient Macedonia and Alexander the Great. The Letter to Pesident Obama, translated in three other languages (German, FYROM-Slavic & Greek) from its original English, is accompanied by historical documentation, also in four languages, that supports and verifies historical facts included in the letter. Articles by reputable and credible scholars regarding ancient Macedonia and the language of its people - taken from the webpage - are also included in the book. The sole concern and motivation of the scholars who have co-signed the letter to President Obama is that history is not revised to fit political expediencies. The scholarly community has a duty to preserve historic truth. The aim of this book is exactly that: TO PRESERVE HISTORIC TRUTH.

About the authors:

The contibutors of the material of this publication and co-signers of the letter to President Obama are numerous well-known scholars of Graeco-Roman Antiquity from universities, research centers and academic institutions around the world. The sole concern and motivation of the scholars who have co-signed the letter to President Obama is that history is not revised to fit political expediencies. The scholarly community has a duty to preserve historic truth. The aim of this book is exactly that: TO PRESERVE HISTORIC TRUTH. Further information is available at: http://macedonia-evidence.org/.

Pella Katadesmos

2011-05-01T13:40:00.002+03:00

Pseudoscience, "Rosetta Stone Hoax" and “University of Toronto”.

2011-04-11T12:38:00.003+03:00

N.C. Flemming remark that the Pseudoscience corrupt the basis of factual knowledge available to the public, and particularly to students. It also corrupt and debase the methodology of establishing empirical evidence for past events (in fields such as geology, archaeology, cosmology, or history), and hence the ability of students or the lay reader to distinguish fact from fantasy or invention. It follows that, in order to combat the slow but apparently remorseless growth of pseudoarchaeology, we must understand its appeal. It is impossible to provide the believer with an antidote if we do not comprehend the nature of the belief and the strength of its attraction.

Why I am saying all these?

Because, I read with a big surprise, that the University of Toronto will host (see the picture) two of the greatest promoters of the FYROM pseudoscience. Two Slavmacedonians Engineers Dr. Tentov and Dr. Boshevski promoted...

their Rosetta Stone Hoax to the Canadian public, on the scope of indulging to the mind of the average Canadian, a sense of false Slavmacedonian pride based on his alleged “ancient roots”. They claim that they have found a connection between the ancient Macedonian language and the modern Slavonic Macedonian language. These two Slavmacedonian university professors are claiming that the "Demotic" script in the well known “Rosetta Stone”, in fact, is a text related to the “old Slavonic Macedonian language” and is Ancient Macedonian. Dr. Boshevski in an interview claimed that they ancient Macedonians fled the Balkans and resettled north as far as Siberia, in order to avoid the Romans and they came in 6^th cent A.D. Here an abstract:

“We cannot accept the notion that the Macedonian-Roman wars "cleansed out" the entire Ancient Macedonian population as much as we cannot accept the notion that the Ancient Macedonians who fled the conflict disappeared altogether. There are well documented historic facts that prove that Ancient Macedonians not only survived the Roman invasion but many who fled north in fact, over time, returned to their ancestral lands in the Balkans.”

[http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/ristova/rosetta_stone_boshevski.html]

We now need to ask what happens if we take on the responsibility of deciding among the various narratives, and demonstrate that some are supported by better evidence than others, and that some are even demonstrably false. Educators who teach contrafactual narratives will appeal to the doctrine of academic freedom, which they will interpret to mean that anyone can say anything. But academic freedom was designed to allow faculty members to express opinions or discuss theories that are controversial. It was not intended to protect individuals like Holocaust deniers who seek to teach what is demonstrably false.

In practice there are established limits to academic freedom. The question is whether the professors’ claims are based on sound research and warranted evidence. In my opinion I do not believe that we should continue to permit the doctrine of academic freedom to serve as a protective smokescreen for the kind of discourse that has no place in a university. It is through the use of evidence that we can separate good scholarship from bad, in any field. The best argument is not the one we like, or the one that is argued most persuasively, but the one that offers the best account of all the available facts. Is disgrace for the University of Toronto, to host the greatest promoters of the FYROM pseudoscience.

More information for the “Rosetta Stone Hoax” that promoting these two Slavmacedonians Professors, in http://ancient-medieval-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2009/09/rosetta-stone-and-tendov-boshevski.html

Demosthenes, Philip and the "Third Philippic"

2011-04-01T18:39:00.001+03:00

The statement found in Demosthenes 3rd Philippic has been used time and time again by our beloved Northern neighbors, in an attempt to indicate that the Makedones were not considered Hellenes..
It is actually this quote that has been used:

Demosthenes, 3rd Philippic 31
But if some slave or superstitious bastard had wasted and squandered what he had no right to, heavens! how much more monstrous and exasperating all would have called it! Yet they have no such qualms about Philip and his present conduct, though he is not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honor, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave.

But did Demosthenes and the rest of the Hellinic world actually consider Philip and thus the Makedones as 'foreigners' which some strive to support based on the use of the term 'barbarian' ?
Demosthenes clarifies this for us in a different text.. titled, "On the False Embassy".. there we read:

Demosthenes, On the False Embassy 304-306

[304] Was it not Aeschines? Who persuaded you to send embassies almost as far as the Red Sea, declaring that Greece was the object of Philip's designs, and that it was your duty to anticipate the danger and not be disloyal to the Hellenic cause? Was it not Eubulus who proposed the decree, and the defendant Aeschines who went as ambassador to the Peloponnesus? What he said there after his arrival, either in conversation or in public speeches, is best known to himself: what he reported on his return I am sure you have not forgotten.

[305] For he made a speech in which he repeatedly called Philip a barbarian and a man of blood. He told you that the Arcadians were delighted to hear that Athens was really waking up and attending to business.
He related an incident which, he said, had filled him with deep indignation.
On his journey home he had met Atrestidas travelling from Philip's court with some thirty women and children in his train. He was astonished, and inquired of one of the travellers who the man and his throng of followers were;

[306] and when he was told that they were Olynthian captives whom Atrestidas was bringing away with him as a present from Philip, he thought it a terrible business, and burst into tears. Greece, he sorrowfully reflected, is in evil plight indeed, if she permits such cruelties to pass unchecked. He counselled you to send envoys to Arcadia to denounce the persons who were intriguing for Philip; for, he said, he had been informed that, if only Athens would give attention to the matter and send ambassadors, the intriguers would promptly be brought to justice.

Here we learn that Aeschines, Philip's major supporter and the man that was accused of having been bribed by Philip for this very support.. had actually previously given him the title 'barbarian'..

But what was the reason, was it actually his origin or was there a totally different reason ???
The texts again provide...

Demosthenes, On the False Embassy

[308] And as for Philip,â€”why, good Heavens, he was a Greek of the Greeks, the finest orator and the most thoroughâ€”going friend of Athens you could find in the whole world.

And yet there were some queer, ill-conditioned fellows in Athens who did not blush to abuse him, and even to call him a barbarian!

[309] Is it, then, conceivable that the man who made the earlier of those speeches should also have made the later unless he had been corrupted? Is it possible that the same man who was then inflamed with abhorrence of Atrestidas on account of those Olynthian women and children, should now be content to cooperate with Philocrates, who brought free-born Olynthian ladies to this city for their dishonor?

This quote gives us very interesting information...

1) Demosthenes ' sarcastic comment leaves us no doubts that the ironic statement of Philip being a Greek among Greeks, which some queer, ill-conditioned fellows abused him by calling him a barbarian ..(which includes both himself, Hyperides and the rest of those tht formed the group against Philip but also Aeschines that was in the other group in favor of Philip) had little to do with his bloodline but with his actions and what the Atheneans perceived as cultural inferiority in general.
We already know from Isokrates' Panegyricus that the Atheneans took such great pride in their accomplishments that they actually went as far as to state that thanks to them, the denomination Hellenes had become synonymous to their accomplishments, intelligence and culture and not strictly an indication of their race.

Isocrates Panegyrikos 50
"And so far has our city distanced the rest of mankind in thought and in speech that her pupils have become the teachers of the rest of the world; and she has brought it about that the name Hellenes suggests no longer a race but an intelligence, and that the title Hellenes is applied to those who share our culture than to those who share a common blood.

Hence why Demosthenes makes the sarcastic reference to Philip's "exquisite" skills in orations and the obvious political statement related to his "friendship" towards Athens.

2) The enslavement and dishonoring of the Olynthian women and children made Aeschines inflamed with abhorrence and burst into tears..
But what was the reason Aeschines, Demosthenes or any other Athenian would even care about some Olynthian women and children when we know that Olynthos had previously revolted against Athens and formed a 'league' of its own(Chalcidic League) ?
The answer is once again provided from Demosthenes and his speech titled "Against Meidias"

Demosthenes, "Against Meidias" 47

Law

If anyone assaults any child or woman or man, whether free or slave, or commits any unlawful act against anyone of these, any Athenian citizen who desires so to do, being qualified, may indict him before the Judges; and the Judges shall bring the case before the Heliastic Court within thirty days from the date of the indictment, unless some public business prevents, in which case it shall be brought on the earliest possible date. Whomsoever the Court shall condemn, it shall at once assess the punishment or the fine which he is considered to deserve. In all cases where an indictment is entered, as the law directs, if anyone fails to prosecute, or after prosecution fails to obtain one fifth of the votes of the jury, he shall pay a thousand drachmas to the Treasury. If he is fined for the assault, he shall be imprisoned until the fine is paid, provided that the offence was committed against a freeman.

While the use of the word "assault" in the translation may not be clear, in the original the terminology is.. 'hubristai' from 'hubrizw' = wax wanton, run riot, in the use of superior strength or power in sensual indulgence.

We easily come to the conclusion that Philip was titled barbarian NOT due to his 'foreign' origin, but just as we had previously seen in the face of Archelaos II... due to his actions, actions which the Athenians considered so immoral, so vulgar, so brutal that they had strict laws to prevent such activities from taking place in their city.

By Phalanx(Orphic_Hymn)

BYZANTINISM AND HELLENISM by Ap. Vakalopoulos

2011-03-23T20:48:00.007+02:00

REMARKS ON THE RACIAL ORIGIN AND THE INTELLECTUAL CONTINUITY OF THE GREEK NATION

The understanding of intellectual phenomena presupposes not only an adequate stock or knowledge and possess.ion of method but also a maturity of mind, since chiefly with deep personal experience are we able to stand before the remarkable historical and sociological phenomena and try to perceive the course they take in our highly comblex life. The main reason we require much time for the consideration and understanding of phenomena is that frequendy the great changes in history come about very slowly. They unfold gradually and imperceptibly without our being aware of them. The greatest difficulty of all is in following the pattern of these phenomena through the course of the centuries. Such problems are: the famous origin of the modern Greeks and, second, other problems bound up with this first but nonetheless still thorny and much debated. These are problems concerning the relationships and common ground between the ideas of the Ancient and Byzantine world and those of the modern Greeks.
Moreover I would like to bring to mind the establishment of Roman colonies in various parts of the Greek territory, in Epirus and Macedonia.....

facts which are often forgotten.

SOURCE: Vakalopoulos A., “Byzantium and Hellenism. Remarks on the racial origin and the intellectual continuity of the Greek Nation”, Balkan Studies 9 [1968], σελ 101-126

SLAVIC HOMER IN SKOPJE & assorted Balkan fables: the case of the Slavic Trojans

2011-02-17T13:21:00.007+02:00

by Miltiadis Elias Bolaris
FEB 15, 2011

HOCUS POCUS SLAVOMAKEDONIENSIS:

Bogus scholarly witchcraft in the age of Antikvizatsiyja
In notoriously unreliable sources, such as the "Slavic Nationalist Forum" (1) or the expatriate Skopjan misinformation website "MakNews" (2), it is naturally expected to stumble upon products of pseudo-scholarly emesis such as "A new theory about the Trojan era", by Tomáš Spevák, which in all seriousness proclaims nothing less than: "Ancient Trojans were SLAVS"!

The first question now is: Why should anybody waste their time answering such preposterous claims. The answer is clear: This text has been used in every internet posting imaginable to promote its obviously anachronistic case to unsuspecting readers that take its word at its face value. Why should it not? While the text is not backed up by any documentation to speak off, it does include some rather impressive quotes by none other than Homer, the poet of Iliad and Odyssey himself as well as by Tiberius Claudius, the Roman Emperor and by Professor Eugene Borza.

The "new theory about the Trojan era" starts with the following question:

"with all the research conducted for so many years and the enormous amount of funds invested in it, why hasn´t the question, "who were the Trojans" been answered? Since Heinrich Schliemann discovered Troy in 1870, no one has bothered to ask, "what was the ethnicity of the Trojans and who were the Achaeans"?"

Fair question, I would say, for anyone who has obviously never bothered to follow discussions on various Homeric questions, since this question has been asked since and partially answered.

"The assumption all along was that they were "Greek", but were they? In literature and in the movies, they are represented as Greeks; using Greek weapons, Greek architecture, Greek art, etc."

First of all we are pleased to find out that whoever this Tomáš Spevák is, he is obtaining a sufficient component of his education from Hollywood movies, a peerless source of intellectual enrichment, no doubt.

"In history books we were told without a doubt that the "Achaeans were actually early Greeks".

Really now, how could that be? Were 'nt we all in agreement that Homer had been writing about the Sino-Japanese wars all along? Where did this doubtful rabbit about Achaeans being Greeks appear from?

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark", as a famous Makedonski (3) once said.

"But, has anyone inquired as to how they arrived at this conclusion? Where is the proof that the Achaeans and Trojans actually shared a common heritage with the "Greeks"; language, culture, art, weapons or any other characteristic that would qualify them to be "Greek"?"

I don´t believe that anyone can truly say what they really were."

Linear B, the earliest script for writting Greek, circa 1450BC

There is two options to consider here, about the Achaeans at least. Either: A. No Scholar has ever done any research on the subject of the ethnicity, language and culture of the Achaeans, waiting for Tomáš Spevák to enlighten them, or: B. Whoever this person Tomáš Spevák is, he has been obviously living in an opaque and hermetically sealed glass sphere, since he never heard of the Linear B tablets. The decipherment in 1952 by Michael Ventris and John Chadwick of the thousands of inscribed clay tablets, found in Pylos, Thebes, Knossos and Mycenae, among other locations throughout Greece, forever and irrevocably proved exactly that: The language of the Achaeans, the Mycenaeans, as they are known, was undoubtedly Greek. Once we read his next statement:

"But we can, with some certainty, say that they were not Greek."

Now we know: it is definitely "B": the man obviously has no clue, or worse yet, he decides to twist the truth to fit his means!

Nevertheless, we want to hear what more he has to say:

"Allow me to elaborate.
Let us begin with a quote from Tiberius Claudius;
"Among these Celts, if the word is to have any significance, even the ´Achaean´ Greeks, who had established themselves for some time in the Upper Danube Valley before pushing southward into Greece. Yes, the Greeks are comparative newcomers to Greece. They displaced the native Pelasgians ... This happened not long before the Trojan War; the Dorian Greeks came still later - eighty years after the Trojan War."

This is serious stuff, indeed. If Tiberius Claudius said it, indeed emphatically and in bold letters: "Yes, the Greeks are comparative newcomers to Greece" it must be true!

Doubts about the "newcomers Greeks" now hit me like a train hits a broken down Yugo stranded on a rail pass. I had to find out what else Tiberius Claudius wrote about them, so I tried to locate the full quote, with a quick search on the internet. To my surprise, of the dozen or so websites that carried this quote, not one of them was from a University or any other scholarly source. Every single one of them was either from Slavomacedonian or Albanian ultra-nationalist sites (4), hardly sympathetic to Greeks and not necessarily intent to promote the Classics.

Not knowing much about Tiberius Claudius apart that he was a Roman emperor, related to Caligula, I read up a little to find out what is known about what he wrote. It seems like he wrote on diverse subjects from the history of Augustus' reign to a history of the Etruscans and the history of Carthage. He also compiled a Latin-Etruscan dictionary as well as a book on dice. Nothing of what he wrote has survived, apart from a couple edicts, one in France and one in Egypt. With this in mind, let us now re-write what we read above, the way it SHOULD HAVE BEEN written:

Let us begin with a FABRICATED quote, SUPPOSEDLY from Tiberius Claudius.

"Among these Celts, if the word is to have any significance, even the ´Achaean´ Greeks, who had established themselves for some time in the Upper Danube Valley before pushing southward into Greece. Yes, the Greeks are comparative newcomers to Greece. They displaced the native Pelasgians ... This happened not long before the Trojan War; the Dorian Greeks came still later - eighty years after the Trojan War.",

in other words:…WAAAAY LATER than either the Slavo-macedonians or Albanians who are OF COURSE "autochthonous" to the Balkans and have been there since before the Big Bang!

Now that we know we are dealing with a shameless nationalistic history falsifier who has no qualms about forging fake "documents" to promote his case, we need to be on alert about what we read:

"The theory was, according to Herodotus and Homer, that "barbarian" tribes from the north, known as the Dorians, threatened the ancient Achaean cities even before the great (Trojan) war. They say that these tribes came from as far as the Danube River valley."

I wonder where Homer says these things. To begin with, Homer NEVER EVEN MENTIONS the Danube river and he only mentions the Dorians, the best I know, ONLY ONCE:

Κρήτη τις γαῖ᾽ ἔστι, μέσῳ ἐνὶ οἴνοπι πόντῳ,καλὴ καὶ πίειρα, περίρρυτος: ἐν δ᾽ ἄνθρωποι πολλοί, ἀπειρέσιοι, καὶ ἐννήκοντα πόληες. [175] ἄλλη δ᾽ ἄλλων γλῶσσα μεμιγμένη: ἐν μὲν Ἀχαιοί, ἐν δ᾽ Ἐτεόκρητες μεγαλήτορες, ἐν δὲ Κύδωνες, Δωριέες τε τριχάϊκες δῖοί τε Πελασγοί. Homer, Odyssey 19.148
Crete is called a land, in the midst of the wine-dark sea,
a beautiful, rich land, well watered, and many men live there,
countless, and ninety cities. [175]
in speech among themselves their languages are mixed: There live Achaeans,
and bighearted native Cretans, there are Cydonians,
and Dorians of waving plumes and divine Pelasgians.

Homer, in other words hardly mentions the Dorians in passing, just once, and there only as an anachronism, since when the Trojan war was fought the Dorians were not even known to the Achaeans and for sure they were not in Crete. It is obvious that they entered his poetry much later as it is obvious that they play no part in it. Now we go to Herodotus who, speaking of Croesus´s inquire he tells us:

[2] ἱστορέων δὲ εὕρισκε Λακεδαιμονίους καὶ Ἀθηναίους προέχοντας τοὺς μὲν τοῦ Δωρικοῦ γένεος τοὺς δὲ τοῦ Ἰωνικοῦ. ταῦτα γὰρ ἦν τὰ προκεκριμένα, ἐόντα τὸ ἀρχαῖον τὸ μὲν Πελασγικὸν τὸ δὲ Ἑλληνικὸν ἔθνος. καὶ τὸ μὲν οὐδαμῇ κω ἐξεχώρησε, τὸ δὲ πολυπλάνητον κάρτα. (5)
[2] He found by inquiry that the chief peoples were the Lacedaemonians among those of Doric, and the Athenians among those of Ionic stock. These races, Ionian and Dorian, were the foremost in ancient time, the first a Pelasgian and the second a Hellenic people. The Pelasgian race has never yet left its home; the Hellenic has wandered often and far. (6)

[3] ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ Δευκαλίωνος βασιλέος οἴκεε γῆν τὴν Φθιῶτιν, ἐπὶ δὲ Δώρου τοῦ Ἕλληνος τὴν ὑπὸ τὴν Ὄσσαν τε καὶ τὸν Ὄλυμπον χώρην, καλεομένην δὲ Ἱστιαιῶτιν: ἐκ δὲ τῆς Ἱστιαιώτιδος ὡς ἐξανέστη ὑπὸ Καδμείων, οἴκεε ἐν Πίνδῳ Μακεδνὸν καλεόμενον: ἐνθεῦτεν δὲ αὖτις ἐς τὴν Δρυοπίδα μετέβη καὶ ἐκ τῆς Δρυοπίδος οὕτω ἐς Πελοπόννησον ἐλθὸν Δωρικὸν ἐκλήθη.

[3] ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ Δευκαλίωνος βασιλέος οἴκεε γῆν τὴν Φθιῶτιν, ἐπὶ δὲ Δώρου τοῦ Ἕλληνος τὴν ὑπὸ τὴν Ὄσσαν τε καὶ τὸν Ὄλυμπον χώρην, καλεομένην δὲ Ἱστιαιῶτιν: ἐκ δὲ τῆς Ἱστιαιώτιδος ὡς ἐξανέστη ὑπὸ Καδμείων, οἴκεε ἐν Πίνδῳ Μακεδνὸν καλεόμενον: ἐνθεῦτεν δὲ αὖτις ἐς τὴν Δρυοπίδα μετέβη καὶ ἐκ τῆς Δρυοπίδος οὕτω ἐς Πελοπόννησον ἐλθὸν Δωρικὸν ἐκλήθη. (5)

[3] For in the days of king Deucalion it inhabited the land of Phthia, then the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus, in the time of Dorus son of Hellen; driven from this Histiaean country by the Cadmeans, it settled about Pindus in the territory called Macedonian; from there again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where it took the name of Dorian.(6)
[3] For in the days of king Deucalion it inhabited the land of Phthia, then the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus, in the time of Dorus son of Hellen; driven from this Histiaean country by the Cadmeans, it settled about Pindus in the territory called Macedonian; from there again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where it took the name of Dorian.(6)

Having seen that Homer mentions nothing or almost nothing of the Dorians, we now see that Herodotus, far from speaking of imaginary " "barbarian" tribes from the north, known as the Dorians", who supposedly "threatened the ancient Achaean cities even before the great (Trojan) war", he also never mentions anything about Danube River valley hearsay "They say that these tribes came from as far as the Danube River valley."

Herodotus clearly calls the Dorians Greeks and he clearly states that they came south from the mountainous Pindus range areas of Epirus and Macedonia, both of which are localities in what was then and now northwestern Greece.

Therefore, his second quote:

"The theory was, according to Herodotus and Homer, that "barbarian" tribes from the north, known as the Dorians, threatened the ancient Achaean cities even before the great (Trojan) war. They say that these tribes came from as far as the Danube River valley",

is proven to be a fraudulent one too. This is two out of two! One more strike and he is out!
Yet he continues unabated:

"Modern scholars however have doubts. There is no archeological evidence to support this theory.According to professor Eugene Borza:"The theory of Dorian invasions is largely an invention of 19th century historiography, and is otherwise unsupported by either archaeological or linguistic evidence. Most archaeologists and many linguists have abandoned the belief that Greek speaking Dorians devastated Mycenaean centers at the end of the Bronze Age..."

Since no book reference is given, I now have my serious doubts as to whether this one is a valid quote too. Once again, this particular quote is disseminated in the usual Skopjan internet sites that drip of anti-Greek hateful venom, so my suspicion is that this quote is also a fake. If anything, both linguistic and archaeological arguments, not to mention historic and mythological ones can be used to support a Dorian invasion. The Dorian dialect for example flowed down from the Peloponnese to a crescent that drops south to Crete and then rises up to Rhodes, and across into Caria, while on the other side it also goes west of Western Greece, beyond the Ionian Sea to Cicily and Southern Italy up to Neapolis, Naples. On the other hand, the Achaean dialect survived in mountainous Arcadia, in the center of the Peloponnese, surrounded by Dorians and it also survived in far away Cyprus, making later linguists call it the Arcado-Cyprian. The Aeolian and Ionian dialects held their ground in Eastern Greece (except Boeotia, Thebes) and the central and northern part of the Western coast of Asia Minor. As for the Archaeology, if it was not the Dorians who destroyed the fabled Achaean citadels, it must certainly be the ones who took lasting advantage of their demise. This is why it is doubtful that Eugene Borza would have written such a quote.

Since we speak of Eugene Borza, I need to say that he is the darling of the Skopjan pseudo-macedonians, since he is honestly of the (obviously naïve) opinion that the Macedonians became Hellenized by the southern Greeks, AFTER they conquered them, a first in world history where a dominant and demographically strong imperial society lets itself lose its own language by a conquered people who is not numerically superior. His arguments, real or imaginary, are all over the internet, in support of a separate (albeit closely related to Greek) Macedonian ethnicity in the ancient times, before the 4thcBC.

Darling of the Skopjans (for the wrong reasons!) or not, Eugene Borza is still a serious academic. While the Slavomacedonians beat the drums trying to make a case for non-Greek ancient Macedonians, whose descendants (obviously) they claim to be, Eugene Borza brutally brings them back to earth:

"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…Their own so-called Macedonian ethnicity had evolved for more than a century, and thus it seemed natural and appropriate for them to call the new nation "Macedonia" and to attempt to provide some cultural references to bolster ethnic survival..."Eugene Borza, Macedonia Redux (7)

This was of course written in 2003, years before the Antikvijatsija theories invaded Skopje via Toronto and Melbournetook and captured it by a storm and Nikola Gruevski's VMRO-DPMNE party put the regime propaganda engines full blast, turning the Slavic-speaking part of FYROM's population into "Antickite Makedonci", descendants of Александар Велики/Aleksandar Veliki, Alexander the Great!
Now we move to some hard core anti-scientific arguments…it is all about "belief" and "certainty", nevertheless:

"It is my belief that the Achaeans and the Dorians have always lived in Thessaly or on the Ionian coast. To which language group they belong I can´t say with certainty, but their language nonetheless created a large part of the classical Greek vocabulary."

It is also my belief that the Italians arrived into Italy during the late Renascence coming from the Western coast lands of southern Japan and Eastern Korea and they spoke a Classic Chinese dialect, though I am not too sure of it. How is that for a theory? And, more importantly…who in this world cares for my theory if I have nothing to back it up with and document it and, additionally, it flies in the face of every historical fact we have at our disposal. Italian Renascence art, after all, does not remind someone of Japanese, Korean or Chinese art.

Further down we are treated to some infantile geopolitical analysis of the late bronze age that could be considered age-appropriate for a third grade student, had it not been written in such a mediocre way:

"If the Trojan War indeed took place, taking Homer´s word who so eloquently described it, one can conclude that it left the Achaeans and their allies devastated and in a state of weakness. The Trojan War in fact could have been far more devastating than Homer described it. Some scholars believe, mythology aside, it was a war for economic dominance. Troy, the richest city in the known world, presented a threat to the Achaeans because it controlled most of the trade through the Dardanelle pass. Troy had many allies and could have easily taken full control of the pass. Control of the pass would have meant controlling the entire sea trade between the Mediterranean and Black Seas.

The prospect of Troy controlling the pass worried the Achaeans who tried by every means possible to find a solution. Unfortunately, Troy continued to ignore them. Unable to find a peaceful solution, the Achaeans declared war on Troy.
The Achaeans amassed a great army, a size never before seen, and set out for Troy. When they arrived, the Trojans met them before the great walls of their city. The armies clashed and fought endless battles. It was a war of the worlds as each side drew in on its allies. Each side used its genius to outdo the other and many men in great numbers on both sides were killed.

When it was over, the Achaeans returned home victorious. Unfortunately, it was a bitter sweet victory which left them devastated. Many kings and nobles died in the battlefields and many more died at home through sinister plots and intrigues. Even the High King Agamemnon was murdered.
Weakened, leaderless and with a population in decline, the war brought more suffering than it did prosperity. With new and inexperienced leadership, a shortage of men and material, defense from the savage invaders from the north became a serious challenge."

Further down we are getting apocryphal:

"The Pelasgi (Belasci), the ancient settlers of the Balkans, called these new savages from the north, Xellenes (newcomers). They were later named Greeks by the Romans. "

The reader is advised not to even bother searching for either "Belasci" or "Xelenes", since they are the tail of the dog that is chasing it…all internet references bring us back to this same article: Purely invented ethnonyms. We keep the "Xellenic" on hold for now and we will return to it later on.

Now the reader is leaving behind any contact with history and enters the abode of pure fantasy:

"The Xellenic tribes of Dorians, arrived on the Peloponnesus eighty years after the Trojan War. They raided the countryside, destroying the rich Achaean culture, cities and enclaves along with the native Achaean population. Their arrival brought dramatic change to the region. They no longer had a High King to rule over all the tribes and cities. Art, architecture and science also changed, modified by the mixing of new cultures; Egyptians, Phoenicians, Xellenes, Pelasgians, Anatolians and others. All these people helped shape Greece to become what it was during the classical period.

We cannot draw conclusions from studying the Achaeans and Trojan cultures alone, we need archeological evidence to corroborate our theories. Based on cultural evidence alone, we can equally assume the Trojans were a Slavic people."

The reader can now conclude, and I do not need to explain why, since it is known from Virgil who told us about the Xitalians, of Xitaly, who left Trojagrad and with the help of Korean and Egyptian colonists, established the Japanese colony of Nova Trojagrad also known as Romevo or Romavo and further north the Proto-Slavic Veneti established Venezziagradovo. It goes without saying that "Based on cultural evidence alone, we can equally assume the Xlatin Xitalians were a Slavic people." This historic dogma should be de facto accepted, no questions asked! After all,

"According to historian Alexander Donski, if one reads the description of the customs practiced by Trojans as per Homer´s Iliad, without knowing who the Trojans were, one would get the impression that they were the modern Balkan Slavic peoples."

If my cousin the liar said it, it must be true! Aleksandar Donski (8) is pseudo-makedonism´s all time favorite Antikvizatsiyja promoter prima dona. It is well known that the Trojan proto-Slavs lived in Zadrugas inside Troy-Trojagradovo and their most famous Czar was Priam-Priamovski whose Czarina was Ecabe-Ekavska.

Our torture is not over:

"On a side note, many contemporary scholars today believe that the ancient Pelasgi, the inhabitants of the Greek Peninsula, before the classical Greeks, were proto-Slavic. Other ancient Balkan peoples such as the Thracians, Paeonians, Dardanians, Veneti, Bryges, Illyrians, Minoans and people from Asia Minor such as the Lydians, Phrygians, Mysians and even Scythians and Sarmatians (Amazons) are also believed to be proto-Slavic speaking people."

It is upsetting that these "contemporary scholars" fail to mention the Indians and the Han Chinese as proto-Slavic, but I sigh with relief that the single-breasted Amazons have been included in the lot!

"Several factors have led scholars this conclusion, art, customs, ancient relics with inscriptions of written languages, etc. Scholars Vasil Ilyov, Sergei V. Rjabchikov, Prof. V. A. Chudinov, Matej Bor, Anthony Ambrozic and others…"

I cannot help mentioning that there are more nuts in this group of pseudo-scholars than in a macadamia nut jar.

"…have deciphered many ancient scripts from Phrygian, Venetic, Etruscan, Linear A, ancient Macedonian, Vincha, ancient Russian and other sources with the use of contemporary Slavic languages. In fact a number of so-called undecipherable scripts have now been deciphered and translated by using the Slavic languages, something never seriously done before."

The recipe is simple: is there an unknown undecipherable stone age script (or even a well known Ptolemaic one like the Egyptian Demotic (9) on the Rosetta stone ) out there? Bring it on, to Vasil Iliov (10) and he will read it be it, whether it is 5.5 or 102 thousand year old (you read it right! ), using the Cyrillic script and the Slavomacedonian language as spoken today in FYROM!

"Why didn´t anyone think of using Slavic, the vast family of languages of one of the largest nations on Earth? I believe because of political reasons: communism and all the propaganda surrounding it, not to mention the isolation the Slavic states suffered."

This quote above, these precise three sentences, have been used in their EXACT form by at least two Skopjan propagandists that I know, this one and the pseudonymous author of the Homeric Hoax par excellence: "Slavic elements in Homer" (11). Plagiarism, it seems, is unknown among these frauds, they shamelessly copy and misquote everything, even each other. The question to the reader might arise: Why do I say Skopian propagandists when the name of the author of the article in question, Tomáš Spevák, is apparently Czech? We continue with the next paragraph and the answer will become even more apparent:

"What is also interesting is that contemporary scholar Odisej Belchevsky and others are now studying the language in which Homer wrote the Iliad & Odyssey and are finding that it was written in a proto-Slavic language, closely related to modern Macedonian dialects."

What do we have here? Once again, exactly the same paragraph apparently plagiarized, word by word, from "Slavic elements in Homer". But the author of "Slavic Elements in Homer" is also using this article as his own source:

"A new theory about the Trojan era by Tomáš Spevák: On a side note, many contemporary scholars today believe…" , which means that this article came first.

Who is the author of "Slavic elements in Homer". Petrus Invictus himself. But, Petrus Invictus being his "spiritual identity and it is one I was given a loooong time ago"(sic), you can also call him John Donne. But you can also call him Perica, or Petro, or just plainly John. He admits that "Perica Sardzoski is my current identity", yet "my new identity as John Donne is my own trust me!" Of course we trust you Petro-Perica-Petrus-John (12)! Why shouldn't we?

Furthermore, the word "contemporary scholar" has been used to describe this contemporary pseudo-scholarly fraud, Odisej Belchevski (13), by none other than the infamous, Toronto based Skopjan expatriate propagandist, the one who has raised anti-Hellenic scatology to levels of hatred previously unimaginable, Odisej´s buddy, Risto "Velikiot" (as in Aleksandar Velikiot, the Great!) himself.

Something is happening here, obviously, more than simple plagiarism, which for a good propagandist is not a crime, anyway, but second skin. The first giveaway is the name: it is Czeck, yet nothing is to be found by this "author" again, in fact the article has been erased from the MakNews website, though at the moment this is being written it is still appearing on the list of the available articles (14).

I sent an email to the imaginary Mr. Tomáš Spevák (at brumi@neobee.net) asking for his exact references for quotes used in this article yet the email was returned as undeliverable (15). The hosting company, Neobee (16), is Serbian, based in Belgrade. It is obvious that there is no Czech author writing and operating out of Beograd who is writing nonsense about the ancient Slavic Trojans. The name was made up to confuse, and the article was written to build on Odisej Belshevski´s (17) original hoax and also to become the basis for what came next, the more comprehensive "Slavic Elements in Homer". All three are interwoven and cross referenced. Who is the real author of this particular fraud? Follow the traces in the crime scene and you will find the source, is what I would suggest. All crooks leave their fingerprints or something belonging to them and racing back to their true identity, on the crime scene. There are two emails at the end of this article. One of them is long ago disconnected. If the first one fails to respond, try the second…

An even more hilarious detail needs to be exposed. Further up on the text we found the puzzling and rather apocryphal references to "Xellenic tribes" and to "Xellenes". We keep in mind that Hellenic and Hellenes is the ethnonym of the Greeks in Greek. Hellenic in Greek is spelled Ἑλληνικόν and Ἕλληνες, respectively. If you were to spell it in Czech it would be Hellenic and Hellenes too, using the Latin script rules. But spell that in Slavomakedonski and the Cyrillic script shows us what happened. The Skopjan fraud left his traces once again: : Xэлленик became Xellenic instead of Hellenic and Xэллинес became Xellenes, instead of Hellenes, something a Czech person, used to write in his native Latinized Slavonic would never even think of...

Having said that, let´s entertain ourselves a bit longer:

"And now back to the Trojans and Achaeans. It is my belief that the Achaeans did not speak a proto-Slavic language."

Now we are truly amazed: If Aegean Pelasgians, Illyrians Thracians, Macedonians, Trojans, Phrygians and one-breasted Amazons babes, among others, spoke proto-Slavic, why this exception with the Greek Achaeans?

"If their vocabulary contained proto-Slavic words it is most likely they were borrowed from the Pelasgi or other Slavic-speaking tribes. I believe the Achaeans spoke a language that was more closely related to the language family of the later City States, but surely it wasn´t the same as that which was brought from Thessaly by the Dorians."

This makes a lot of sense...or maybe not? We cannot help but note here that this Balkan hate monger cannot even bring himself to utter the word "Hellenic" or "Greek" when speaking of the language, but goes through a whole paraphrase "a language that was more closely related to the language family of the later City States", just to avoid it. This is why I insist that Risto is Velikiot, the greatest in his craft indeed: he does what he is a specialist in, namely anti-Hellenic scatology, and he does it with the passion of the convert, or the well compensated clerk. He was an office assistant before he became an "author" after all.

Pseudo-historical science continues:

"The Peloponnesus was settled by various peoples. Egyptians [Ethiopians (18) as well], Phoenicians, Libyans [I believe the Sea People], Anatolians (Ionians) and Italics all contributed to the creation of the Mycenaean civilization and ethnicity.

The ancient Greek language (Attic) was less than 50% Indo-European and only 20% of Greek names and toponyms (aside the numerous Slavic ones) were Indo-European. Thus, it is no surprise that scholars classified linear B as Greek, because "Greek" encompasses elements of many languages including Egyptian, Phoenician, Anatolian and others, that don´t belong in the Balkans. In other words, all the languages spoken in the Peloponnesus before the arrival of the "Greek" Dorians.

Even the so-called "Greek gods" have roots in Egypt and elsewhere. I do not believe the inhabitants of ancient City States ever "founded" a god themselves.

It is interesting that some Spartan kings claimed relation to the lords from the Middle East, Egypt and the shrine: pyramid at Menelaion. It is also interesting that the Achaean architecture has a striking resemblance to the Egyptian."

Are we still there? Let´s take a deep breath of fresh air and dive in the mud again:

"As for the Trojans, we don´t have evidence of their written language (thus far ) (19)&(20), but we do know that most of their allies were proto-Slavic speaking peoples related to them (Trojans) whose customs are surprisingly very similar to those of the modern Balkan Slavs. According to Anthony Ambrozic and others, the Trojans were related to the Phrygians (21), whom we know were related to the proto-Slavic Veneti.
I believe more evidence is required to conclusively prove this, but finding it for the time being is beyond the scope of this article."

True, but who needs boring "evidence" when "belief" and membership to the VMRO-DPMNE party is enough to get you into Slavomakedoniot paradise and all the perks associated with support of the Gruevskian regime in Skopje?

"If my theory is correct, a new chapter in history will soon be written, a chapter that will include the Slav contribution to the world.",

...not to speak of his contribution to endless material for stand-up comedy clubs worldwide or to the anthropology of a people that have been mesmerized by Skopje´s Antikvizatsiyja´s BIG LIE or the psychology of a pathetic liar who is passing himself off as a pseudo-Scientist.

To cup it off, here is another Homeric quote, or so we are led to believe:

"As Homer puts it (describing the Slav barbarian tribes) in his epic:
"They are numerous like leafs in the forest… with chariots and weapons decorated with gleaming gold and silver... like gods." "

How should I put this?...: The reader is advised to not even bother tracing this quote down in Homer.! I already wasted precious time looking for it. Simply put, it simply does not exist! Yet another great day in the daily routine of forgery, fraud, deception and History falsification by the good folks of MakNews.com! Four out of four fabricated quotes in the same paper! If they were forging checks, under the "third strike and you are out" law of California, most of these pseudo-macedonians would be facing life in the slammer with no parole!

The closest Homer ever said to this, that I was able to find is the following excerpt from the Iliad, when Odysseus is interrogating a Trojan captive that he and Diomedes caught on a reconnaissance mission:

Dimedes killing the Thracian Rhesos and Odysseus taking Rhesos' horses

"τὸν δ᾽ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη πολύμητις Ὀδυσσεύς:
πῶς γὰρ νῦν Τρώεσσι μεμιγμένοι ἱπποδάμοισιν
425εὕδουσ᾽ ἦ ἀπάνευθε; δίειπέ μοι ὄφρα δαείω.
τὸν δ᾽ ἠμείβετ᾽ ἔπειτα Δόλων Εὐμήδεος υἱός:
τοὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ καὶ ταῦτα μάλ᾽ ἀτρεκέως καταλέξω.
πρὸς μὲν ἁλὸς Κᾶρες καὶ Παίονες ἀγκυλότοξοι
καὶ Λέλεγες καὶ Καύκωνες δῖοί τε Πελασγοί,
430πρὸς Θύμβρης δ᾽ ἔλαχον Λύκιοι Μυσοί τ᾽ ἀγέρωχοι
καὶ Φρύγες ἱππόμαχοι καὶ Μῄονες ἱπποκορυσταί.
ἀλλὰ τί ἢ ἐμὲ ταῦτα διεξερέεσθε ἕκαστα;
εἰ γὰρ δὴ μέματον Τρώων καταδῦναι ὅμιλον
Θρήϊκες οἷδ᾽ ἀπάνευθε νεήλυδες ἔσχατοι ἄλλων:
435ἐν δέ σφιν Ῥῆσος βασιλεὺς πάϊς Ἠϊονῆος.
τοῦ δὴ καλλίστους ἵππους ἴδον ἠδὲ μεγίστους:
λευκότεροι χιόνος, θείειν δ᾽ ἀνέμοισιν ὁμοῖοι:
ἅρμα δέ οἱ χρυσῷ τε καὶ ἀργύρῳ εὖ ἤσκηται:
τεύχεα δὲ χρύσεια πελώρια θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι
440ἤλυθ᾽ ἔχων: τὰ μὲν οὔ τι καταθνητοῖσιν ἔοικεν
ἄνδρεσσιν φορέειν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσιν.
ἀλλ᾽ ἐμὲ μὲν νῦν νηυσὶ πελάσσετον ὠκυπόροισιν,
ἠέ με δήσαντες λίπετ᾽ αὐτόθι νηλέϊ δεσμῷ,
ὄφρά κεν ἔλθητον καὶ πειρηθῆτον ἐμεῖο
445ἠὲ κατ᾽ αἶσαν ἔειπον ἐν ὑμῖν, ἦε καὶ οὐκί."

"Then in answer to him spοke Odysseus of many wiles: "How is it now, do they sleep mingled with the horse-taming Trojans, [425] or apart? tell me at large that I may know." Then made answer to him Dolon, son of Eumedes: "Verily now this likewise will I frankly tell you. Towards the sea lie the Carians and the Paeonians, with curved bows, and the Leleges and Caucones, and the godly Pelasgi. [430] And towards Thymbre fell the lot of the Lycians and the lordly Mysians, and the Phrygians that fight from chariots and the Maeonians, lords of chariots. But why is it that ye question me closely regarding all these things? For if ye are fain to enter the throng of the Trojans, lo, here apart be the Thracians, new comers, the outermost of all, [435] and among them their king Rhesus, son of Eïoneus. His are verily the fairest horses that ever I saw, and the greatest, whiter than snow, and in speed like the winds. And his chariot is cunningly wrought with gold and silver, and armour of gold brought he with him, huge of size, a wonder to behold. [440] Such armour it beseemeth not that mortal men should wear, but immortal gods. But bring ye me now to the swift-faring ships, or bind me with a cruel bond and leave me here, that ye may go and make trial of me, [445] whether or not I have spoken to you according to right."

Greeks vs Trojans and their allies in the Trojan war mentioned by Homer

No mention of any Slavs or Proto-Slavs, of course, and we should not expect such a ludicrous anachronism: there would be no mention of Slavs by anyone, for the next 1400 to 1800 years in that area of the world.

"For more details on the subjects covered in this article, consult the works of:Homer, Herodotus, Anthony Ambrozic, Eugene Borza, Mario Alinei, Vasil Ilyov, Valeriy A. Chudinov, and Sergei V. Rjabchikov."

Since we already checked the works of Homer and Herodotus, lets us leave the assorted delirious nuts of the Ambrozic, Alinei, Ilyov, Chudinov, and Rjabchikov type out of the mix for now and go will go back to Professor Eugene Borza, as we were asked, for a moment.

We will not consult Professor Borza on the Slavic nature of the imaginary Trojan-ovskis or the single-breasted proto-Slavianki Amazon-ovas. We will ask him something simpler, to talk about the ethnic nature of the Macedonians, since that is where the juice of the matter is concentrated, and the true reason why such hilarious pseudo-scholarly articles are being crafted and so effectively promoted in the Slavomacedonian ultra-nationalist and other international Slavic-related websites:

"Our understanding of the Macedonians' emergence into history is confounded by two events: the establishment of the Macedonians as an identifiable ethnic group, and the foundation of their ruling house. The "highlanders" or "Makedones" of the mountainous regions of western Macedonia are derived from northwest Greek stock; they were akin both to those who at an earlier time may have migrated south to become the historical "Dorians", and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians. That is, we may suggest that northwest Greece provided a pool of Indo-European speakers of Proto-Greek from which were drawn the tribes who later were known by different names as they established their regional identities in separate parts of the country... First, the matter of the Hellenic origins of the Macedonians: Nicholas Hammond's general conclusion (though not the details of his arguments) that the origin of the Macedonians lies in the pool of proto-Greek speakers who migrated out of the Pindus mountains during the Iron Age, is acceptable."Eugene Borza, "Makedonika", Regina Books, Claremont CA

As for the imaginary author, the Czech named "Tomáš Spevák",

"For comments and inquiries contact the author Tomáš Spevák at brumi@neobee.net (an e-mail which we already know that does not work!) or Risto Stefov at rstefov@hotmail.com"

P.S.Cherry on the pie:
Since no two liars can ever agree on the same lie, here is another loony theory from the land of loony theories. Professora Margarita Kitan Ivanoska from Skopje appearing on national TV (22) where she is in all seriousness "proving" that Troy was not in Anatolia, where Homer and the ancients tell us that it lay, and where Schliemann found it, but somewhere in Southwestern FYRoMakedonija. The question is now pseudo-"linguistic": was it Mariovo-Troyjovo (3:10 in the video), or was it in Ostrovo-Troyjovo (4:40 in the video)!
Zeus help us!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyBZ-IhZwfA&feature=related

NOTES & REFERENCES:
1. http://slavija.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=4504&page=1#38083
2. http://www.maknews.com/html/articles.html#spevak
3. I do not want to hear any doubts about the historic certainty that Shakespeare was a Slavomakedonski. Even if he has not been claimed as such till now, that is only because upcoming books of Donski and Stefov "proving" that he was a Skopjan, like Alexander the Great, Aristotle, George W. Bush and Queen Elizabeth, among others, have not hit the Toronto and Melbourne bookstores as yet: patience!
4. http://forum.kajgana.com/archive/index.php/t-21356.html, http://illyria.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ancientgreece&action=print&thread=23027 , etc
5. Ηροδότου Ιστορίαι Α.56.2&3
6. Ηerodotus I.56.2&3, Herodotus, with an English translation by A. D. Godley. Cambridge. Harvard University Press. 1920.
7. "Macedonia Redux", in "The Eye Expanded: life and the arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity", ed. Frances B Tichener & Richard F. Moorton, University of California Press, 1999
8. http://macedonianissues.blogspot.com/2010/06/macedonian-names-and-makedonski-pseudo_16.html, http://macedonianissues.blogspot.com/2010/05/macedonian-names-and-makedonski-pseudo_29.html, etc.
9. http://macedonianissues.blogspot.com/2010_01_01_archive.html
10. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds1yjWYmb60&feature=related
11. http://issuu.com/petro_invictus/docs/slavic_elements_in_homer
12. Perica and Dissosiative Identity Disorder:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=7149853022&topic=5277
13. http://macedonianissues.blogspot.com/2011/01/can-classical-mythology-be-explained.html
14. http://www.maknews.com/html/articles.html#spevak
15. Mail Delivery Subsystem
to me
show details 11:18 AM (22 hours ago)
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
brumi@neobee.net
Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 This account is too old and inactive. This is a permanent error. (state 14).
16. NEOBEE.NET | Novi Sad, Narodnog fronta 55a | Beograd, Kralja Petra 20 | Niš, Cara Dušana 35
17. http://macedonianissues.blogspot.com/2011/02/amazingly-amusing-musings-on.html
18. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYDJ_i4cZxY&feature=related
19. "There was not enough evidence fruitfully to speculate upon the language of Troy until 1995, when a late Hittite seal was found in the excavations at Troy, probably dating from about 1275 BC. Not considered a locally-made object, this item from the Trojan "state chancellery" was inscribed in Luwian and to date provides the only archaeological evidence for any language at Troy at this period. It indicates that Luwian was known at Troy, which is not surprising since it was a lingua franca of the Hittite empire, of which Troy was probably in some form of dependency." From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_language#cite_note-3
20. Another sphere of research concerns a handful of Trojan personal names mentioned in the Iliad. Among sixteen recorded names of Priam's relatives, at least nine (including Anchises and Aeneas) are not Greek and may be traced to "pre-Greek Asia Minor".[3] On this basis Calvert Watkins in 1986 argued that the Trojans may have been Luwian-speaking. For instance, the name Priam is connected to the Luwian compound Pariya-muwa, which means "exceptionally courageous".[4]Additionally, the Alaksandu treaty describes Mira, Haballa, Seha and Wilusa (usually identified with Troy) as the lands of Arzawa, although this "has no historical or political basis",[5] suggesting that it was the language that they had in common. Frank Starke of the University of Tübingen concludes that "the certainty is growing that Wilusa/Troy belonged to the greater Luwian-speaking community".[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_language#cite_note-5
21. http://www.scribd.com/doc/44668910/Midas-and-the-Phrygians
22. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyBZ-IhZwfA&feature=related

SOURCE:http://macedonianissues.blogspot.com/2011/02/slavic-homer-in-skopje-assorted-balkan.html

Re: The Importance of Historical Truth and The Macedonian Issue

2011-02-03T10:47:00.001+02:00

By Professor John Melville-Jones

Following the publication of the edited version of the after-dinner talk that I gave in October, a formal complaint was made to my employer (to which a polite reply was made, stressing the importance of academic freedom), and I received an e-mailed message from the United Macedonian Diaspora (which I thought, because of its name, must be a Greek organisation until I read what it had to say), together with a number of other e-mails. Many of these were merely abusive, but this didn’t surprise me, because I know from experience that when people hold strong beliefs that are based on faith not fact, and they are shown that these beliefs cannot be true, this is distressing to them, and they will very often become agitated, as they cling to their beliefs even more vigorously. None of the messages that I received addressed the issue that I raised in my talk in Melbourne, the proposed erection of the statue of Alexander the Great in Skopje. Two of them were, however, more thoughtful, and I have had some mild and civilised exchanges with their authors, as we define our positions.
Some of the points that were made were what I would call 'diversionary', such as the statement that the present population of the Greek province of Macedonia has nothing in common with its population in ancient times, being 'colonisers', referring to the fact that many of them were brought there from Turkey in the 1920s during the exchange of populations which led to Muslims being removed from...

some areas of the Balkans, and Christians from some parts of Asia Minor. I have pointed out to the persons who made this point that this is not an accurate way to describe what happened; and it is certainly not relevant to the issue that brought me into this debate (see below). Similarly, I know that in northern Greece some of the things that have been done to the Slav minority who live there, such as discouraging them from using their own language, cannot be defended (and I wonder what has happened to any Greek speakers who still live in the FYROM, but no one has told me anything about them). But I am a specialist in the ancient world, not in modern history, and again this is not relevant to the point that I am trying to make.
Anyway, I composed a reply, and sent it to everyone who had contacted me, answering some of the points that had been made, and emphasising that I was not well informed on the details of what had happened in the period of Ottoman domination or the twentieth century, although I am in fact learning more. For example, I have been looking at a book called The Contest for Macedonian Identity 1870-1912 by Nick Anastasovski, which is very scholarly and better documented, particularly in relation to Ottoman sources, than anything else that I have previously read. But it fails in its promise to show how a 'Macedonian Identity' began to be constructed in the 19th century. And one of the problems is that the word ‘Macedonian’ can be interpreted in different ways (I am reminded of the character Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s Alice through the Looking Glass, who said ‘When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean …’).
One delightful experience was my being directed, apparently seriously, to a web site produced by two scientists in Skopje, who claimed to have shown that the middle section of the Rosetta Stone (196 B.C.), the section occupying the space between the text that was presented in hieroglyphics and the text that was presented in Greek, was not, as has been generally supposed, written in Middle or Ptolemaic Demotic Egyptian (close to Coptic), but in the original 'Macedonian' language, which the Ptolemies, being Macedonians, were supposed to have used. This was combined with the suggestion that these original 'Macedonians' had been driven out of Macedonia by the Romans, but returned some seven centuries later to their homeland. Thus we would have a connection between the Macedonians of antiquity and the present inhabitants of the FYROM.
It is amazing that this world-shattering theory has not made the front pages of the international newspapers, even though, to judge from the comments that I have found on the web, some people in the FYROM are convinced by it. There are, however, obvious weaknesses that anyone, not necessarily a specialist in linguistics, can spot easily. In the first place, the web site dismisses the perfectly credible translation from Demotic which is provided by the British Museum. Also, the number of 'Macedonian' words that have been 'identified' by this 'scholarly' study is small (the authors do not offer a translation of the complete text, just a selection of supposed 'Macedonian' words). I discussed this with a linguist of my acquaintance, who said that if he studied the text in the same way, he would be able before too long to prove that some words in it were Finnish, Chinese or (Heaven forbid!) Bulgarian.
The nature of the language spoken by the ancient Makedónes is hard to evaluate, because so little of it remains (I will ignore the claim concerning the Rosetta Stone, and the suggestion that there are inscriptions of an early date in one or more non-Greek languages which have been discovered, but are locked up in Greek museums and kept secret). We have about a hundred and fifty words that are specifically described as ‘Macedonian’, most of them from the Lexicon of Hesychius (5th century A.D., but incorporating earlier work). The material is insufficient for a firm judgement to be made (and it should be remembered that Hesychius and his predecessors were collecting rare or unusual words, rather than listing ones that were the same everywhere), but it is clear even from this limited sample that the Macedonian language was no further from Attic Greek (which became the standard form) than the Cretan or Spartan languages, which would certainly be called Greek.
Having said this, I can restate my position and develop it a bit. The origin of the Makedónes is unclear, but they seem to have arrived in the area around Aigai (Edessa & Vergina) by the eighth century B.C. They pushed out or absorbed the Bottiaioi who lived in that region or to the south of it, and other groups such as the Pierians and Mygdonians. Over the next two centuries they settled there and expanded their territory, and although they still had a number of separate tribes, a firm succession of kings was established, and this made them stronger than other more divided groups. Some of the names of early kings that we have may be legendary, but with Perdikkas I (7th century) we seem to be on firmer ground. The territory under the control of the Makedónes continued to expand, and by the beginning of the 5th century one of their kings, Alexander I, had begun to issue coins with his own name written on them in Greek.
Several passages that survive in Greek authors of the fifth and fourth centuries suggest that the Macedonians were regarded by the southern Greeks as ‘different’. This is not surprising, since they had arrived on the scene much later than the groups that had entered the peninsula during the Bronze Age and moved southward, but it is clear from the evidence that they were, although perhaps grudgingly, accepted as being Hellenes. The situation is less clear with regard to their neighbours on the north, in an area that cannot be exactly defined, but is approximately equivalent to the territory of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. These were called the Paionians, and there were frequent conflicts as they tried to expand into Macedonian territory. At the accession of Philip II to the throne of Macedonia the Paionians joined with the Illyrians in an attempt to take advantage of the inexperience of the new king, but Philip drove them back, defeating them on more than one occasion.
When I spoke of this in my after-dinner speech, I described this event as a ‘conquest’, which was completed by Philip’s son Alexander III. This was an overstatement. The Paionians were defeated, but their territory did not become a part of Macedonia. This is shown by the fact that the Paionian kings began issuing coins bearing their own names (written in Greek of course) during the reign of Philip II, and when Alexander started making his conquests, they provided a separate contingent of cavalry in his army. They certainly remained separate from Macedonia until the Roman conquest, as their continued issuing of coinage, first in the name of their kings, and finally in the name of the Paionians themselves in the early second century B.C., shows. And in the immediate aftermath of that conquest they were still regarded as separate, if we can believe the Roman historian Livy, who tells us (XLV, 29) that the Dardanians were not allowed by the Romans to take control of Paionia, although, as they claimed, it had once been theirs, because it had belonged to the last Macedonian king Perseus (sub regno Persei), and all Perseus’s subjects had now been granted political freedom (libertas).
In later years the name 'Macedonia' was applied to a much larger area. It included some land to the north (Paionia), to the west and to the south (even including southern Greece for a while until a separate Roman province of Achaia was created). And in the centuries before the Ottoman conquest the geographical extent of ‘Macedonia’ (by now a purely administrative district, with no separate ethnic identity), varied considerably at different times. But now we are moving away from the issue that brought me into this naming dispute. This is that the territory of the FYROM was not, either in the fourth century B.C. or for many centuries after that, a part of Macedonia (except perhaps for a very narrow strip along its southern border), and that the erection of a statue of Alexander the Great in Skopje can never be justified, because it is based on a distortion of history by a people who, I am sorry to say, are trying to create a false identity for themselves.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/216105

Alexander the Great at the Louvre for a unique exhibition

2011-01-18T20:29:00.000+02:00

Opening days: Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday
Duration: 1 hr. 30 mins.

Alexander the Great goes .. to France next October! And not just any place in France but at ''Le Louvre'', the country's most famous museum and one of the best museums on the planet. A major exhibition entitled "In the kingdom of Alexander the Great - Ancient Macedonia'' will be hosted at the famous museum from October 2011 until January 2012. Maybe October isn't too close, preparation, however, is almost completed, so that the artifacts will be sent to France from Greece.
The curator of the department of Greek and Roman antiquities of the Louvre Mrs Sophie Deschamp has travelled to all Macedonian cities in Northern Greece in order to....
select the 668 objects which are going to travel to Paris.
"The French know that Alexander was Greek, but not Macedonian. Things are a little confused. They don't know that Macedonia, the birthplace of Alexander the Great is part of Greece. The exhibition will be a great opportunity for the all the visitors of the Louvre to learn about Alexander the Great, the origin and the timelessness of his myth" said today in Thessaloniki, Mrs. Sophie Deschamp.
It should be noted that the French were the first who began excavations in the Ottoman Macedonia. During their excavations they took numerous antiquities in France, where are now presented at the Louvre. So thanks to the exhibition, the sets of the archaeological finds will be- temporarely- reunited.
The story of Alexander III of Macedonia, whom we know as Alexander the Great, is as much the stuff of history as it is of legend. His youth and extraordinary destiny granted him unparalleled glory. But what do we really know about him? Only a few contemporary accounts have come down to us.

Alexander was born in 356 BC, the son of Olympias, a Molossian princess, and Philip II, the king of Macedonia. The kingdom, which was located in the north of Greece, was prosperous and possessed a powerful army. Philip was able to impose his will over the other Greek tribes and city-states, but was assassinated in 336 while he was preparing to invade the neighboring Persian Empire. Alexander, who was twenty at the time, was proclaimed king of Macedonia. He made his father's projects his own and embarked on an unprecedented military expedition, which resulted in sweeping conquests and immense spoils. Alexander's troops pushed their way into Asia as far as the Indus River, founding a number of cities along the way. The story came to an abrupt end in Babylon — Alexander, who was suffering from a high fever, died in 323 without designating an heir. The period that followed was a troubled one, in which his generals, the Diadochoi, fought over the territories that had been conquered, seeking an unrivaled rule. Nevertheless, by 306 BC they had divided up the lands and each took the title of king. This was the beginning of the Hellenistic kingdoms that were dominated by powerful dynasties. The last of these, Lagid Egypt, disappeared in 30 BC, conquered by the Romans.
sources:

Merry Christmas from Macedonia.!!!!

2010-12-24T09:03:00.000+02:00

A question from a reader as regards the "Ancient Macedonian History"

2010-12-22T23:54:00.001+02:00

A common question about Ancient Macedonian History is: “If Alexander A' was Greek, why was he called a Philhellene?”

Philhellene (φιλέλλην, meaning Greek-lover) is a term commonly used of non-Greeks. It is also a term for Greeks who sacrifice themselves for the common good. Plato states that the citizens should be both Greek and Philhellenes (Republic 470E). Agesilaus of Sparta was also called a philhellene (Xenophon, Agesilaus 7.4) because he was a good Greek.

More questions about Ancient Macedonia History are answered at http://macedonia-evidence.org/faq-history.html.

Exaugustus Boiοannes and the Macedonians

2010-12-17T13:08:00.000+02:00

Exaugustus Boiοannes (Italian: Exaugusto Bugiano), son of the famous Basil Boioannes, was also a catepan of Italy, from 1041[1] to 1042[2]. He replaced Michael Doukeianos after the latter's disgrace in defeat at Montemaggiore on May 4. Boioannes did not have the levies and reinforcements that Doukeianos had had at his command. He arrived only with a Varangian contingent. Boioannes decided on trying to isolate the Lombard rebels in Melfi by camping near Montepeloso.

He stated the following prior to battle:

“ Lads, have pride in your manhood, and don't allow yourselves to have the hearts of women! What cowardice makes you always run away? Remember your forefathers whose courage made the whole world subject to them. Hector, the bravest of men, fell before the arms of Achilles. Troy was reduced to flames by the Mycenean fury. India knew of the gallantry of Philip. Did not his son Alexander through his bravery make the strongest of kingdoms submit to the Greeks? The west and indeed every part of the world was once in fear of us. What people, hearing the name of the Greeks, dared to stand before them in the field? Towns, fortresses and cities could scarcely render their enemies safe from their power. Be valiant, I pray you, remember the courage of your ancestors, and don't disgrace them by placing your trust in your feet [alone]! He who dares to fight like a man will overcome the strength of the enemy. Try to follow in the footsteps of your ancestors, and abandon now any idea of flight. All the world should know that you are men of courage. One should not fear the Frankish people in battle, for they are inferior both in numbers and in courage. ”

The Normans, however, sortied from Melfi and camped on the Monte Siricolo, near Montepeloso. They captured a convoy of livestock meant for the Greek camp and forced a battle. Boioannes was defeated and captured (September 3, 1041). The Normans, as mere mercenaries, turned the captive catepan over to the Lombard leader Atenulf in Benevento. The latter accepted a large payment in return for the catepan's liberation and promptly kept the entire ransom for himself. Boioannes was free, but not in command any longer.

References

1-Chalandon, p 99. Amatus of Montecassino, John Skylitzes, and the Annales Barenses place his arrival in 1041, but Lupus Protospatharius places it in 1042. Lupus begins his year in September, so Boioannes should have arrived in Italy within that month or after. We do know, however, that he was defeated and captured in September 1041.

2-He was released in February 1042 from captivity, at which time he was replaced by Synodianos.

Sources

1-Chalandon, Ferdinand. Histoire de la domination normande en Italie et en Sicile. Paris, 1907.

2-Norwich, John Julius. The Normans in the South 1016-1130. Longmans: London, 1967.

3-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaugustus_Boioannes

Byzantine Macedonia (324-1025)

2010-12-14T11:45:00.001+02:00

Byzantine Macedonia (324 - 1025)

Greece: Birthplace of the modern world?

2010-11-27T20:39:00.000+02:00

by Paul Cartledge
guardian.co.uk

E pluribus unum: "out of many – one". The one-time motto of the US reminds us that, much like most of the larger nation states today, ancient Greece was a mosaic of very different components: about 1,000 of them at any one time between c600BC and AD330. That is, there were a thousand or so separate, often radically self-differentiated political entities, most of which went by the title of polis, or citizen-state. Our term "Greece" is derived from the Romans' Latin name, Graecia, whereas the ancient Greeks spoke of Hellas – meaning sometimes the Aegean Greek heartland, at other times the entire, hypertrophied Hellenic world – and referred to themselves as "Hellenes".

In the foundational epics attributed to Homer, however, you won't find Greeks referred to as "Hellenes" but as "Achaeans", "Danaans", or "Argives". That was because the epics are set in a period before "Hellas" and "Hellenes" had become common currency – before, that is, the eighth century BC, when Greeks first started emigrating permanently from the Aegean basin and settling around the Mediterranean and Black Seas. By the time of Plato, around 400BC, Hellas stretched from the Pillars of Heracles (straits of Gibraltar) in the west to Phasis in Colchis (in modern Georgia) in the far east. Later, following the conquests of Alexander the Great, the pale of Hellenic settlement was extended even further eastwards, as far as Afghanistan and the Indus Valley of Pakistan.

Everyone who was not a Hellene by birth, language or culture was labelled a barbaros. Originally an......
onomatopoeic description of anyone who spoke a non-Greek, unintelligible language, barbaros came to acquire the pejorative connotations of "barbarous" and "barbaric". The Romans took the same sort of view of all non-Romans – excepting only Hellenes – which is how those emotive terms entered our own language.

United Greece

The transformational turning point came in the first decades of the fifth century BC, in the course of the epic conflict known from the Greek standpoint as the Persian Wars. The mighty Persian empire, the fastest growing and largest oriental empire yet, had threatened to swallow up mainland Greece as well as those Greeks who lived within the bounds of what the Persians considered their own sphere – Asia. But on the battlefields of Marathon, Salamis, Plataea and Mycale, a relative handful of Greek communities managed to unite long enough to repulse that threat – for ever, as it turned out. Indeed, Alexander turned the tables by conquering the old Persian empire and starting to create a new Helleno-Persian successor: oriental in its underlying administrative and symbolic structure, but Greek in unifying language and high culture.

Furthermore, the Greeks' unexpected victories over the Persians of 490 and 480-479BC unleashed an era of unparalleled cultural creativity – from Aeschylus's tragic drama Persians of 472BC to the mathematical genius of Archimedes. However, united though they were by religion and common social customs and by at least partly fictional self-images, these Greeks were very much not united by one of their major contributions to the sum of human achievement – politics.

Much of our everyday political language is of ancient Greek derivation: monarchy, tyranny, oligarchy, aristocracy, plutocracy, democracy – not to mention the word "politics" itself. Much of the rest is Latin-derived: constitution, republic, empire, among others. But the Latin for "democracy" was democratia, a loan-word, because actually the Romans didn't do democracy – at least not in the original ancient Greek sense of the term; and they recognised, as we all do or should, that in this sphere the Greeks had been the original pioneers.

However, the ancient Greeks' demokratia was hugely different not just in scale but in kind from any modern political system that claims the title of "democracy". That was partly because the fundamental ancient Greek political unit, the polis, was a strong community in a very exclusive sense: only adult male citizens could consider themselves politically entitled. Even then, the ancient Greeks typically ruled themselves directly, in that they did not select rulers to rule over and for them. Theirs were direct, participatory self-governments, whereas ours are notionally "representative".

But democracy, so far from being the ancient Greek norm, was at first a rare and rather fragile plant: only later did it become about as widely distributed as various forms of oligarchy. And only in a few cases – in Athens, above all – was it both deeply rooted and conspicuously radical. At all times and in all places it remained more or less controversial. And there was a good linguistic reason for this. Demokratia was a compound of demos and kratos. But whereas kratos unambiguously meant "grip" or "power", demos could be interpreted to mean either "people" (in a vague sense, as in Abraham Lincoln's famous words at Gettysburg: "government of the people, by the people, for the people") or very specifically "the masses": the poor majority of the enfranchised citizen body (which might range in size from as few as 500, as on the island-state of Melos in the Cyclades, to as many as the 50,000 citizens of democratic Athens).

So if you liked demokratia, it could mean People Power, but if you hated it – if, say, you were a member of the wealthy elite – then it could stand for the ancient Greek equivalent of Lenin's dictatorship of the proletariat.

By and large the Romans took the second view, which is why they went to great lengths to stamp it out within their empire – the eastern half of which was basically Greek – in the end with total success. It therefore took a great deal of effort and ingenuity in the 19th century to rehabilitate "democracy" as a viably positive term of political discourse – and even then only at the cost of draining it of the active, participatory, class-conscious dimension the Athenians had given it.

Worship and sacrifice

A popular proverb says that the ancient Greeks "had a word for it". But actually they didn't always. A conspicuous example is that they had no word for our "religion", which is taken from Latin. Our manifold and multifarious legacy from the ancient Greeks does not include their polytheistic religion – which was superseded and suppressed by various forms of Judaeo-Christianity and then Islam. These latter faiths are all based on the presumption of a single deity, and on privileged hierarchies of vocational officials who interpret their sacred texts and dogmas. The ancient Greeks' "things of the gods", on the other hand, needed no clergy, dogma or doctrine: formulaic rituals mattered above all.

It is easy for us today to be over-impressed by the standing remains of monumental temples such as those on the Acropolis of Athens or of Greek Acragas (Agrigento in Sicily), or by reports of now lost wonders such as the huge seated cult-statue of Zeus at Olympia, crafted by master sculptor Pheidias of Athens in the 430sBC. For most Greeks the object of their greatest devotion was an altar, whether domestic or public. The most characteristic act of religious worship was the performance of a sacrifice, such as a gift of olive oil, wine or grain, or the killing of a pig or chicken. These offerings symbolised both communion between the god or goddess and their mortal worshippers, as well as the unbridgeable gulf that separated the human from the super-human. Though the Greeks' gods and goddesses were represented in human shape, they were regarded rather as powers – immeasurably more powerful than puny mortals.

Myths

Another unique feature about the Greek deities was that they didn't have a hand in creating the world. In fact, they themselves were created only after a void state of chaos. We refer to these stories about the Greek gods' supernatural origins and functions as "myths". But for the Greeks a myth was a traditional tale that could have a purely secular, mortal content. Indeed, it was a prime marker of advanced intellectuals' sceptical, rational, critical outlook that "myth" came to be downgraded as a derogatory term meaning something like a romantic fiction. And it was a condition of the Greeks' achievements in philosophy and the natural sciences that they managed to reason without invoking mythology, conducting their ideas on the understanding that the natural and human worlds could in principle be explained without recourse to the hypothesis of supernatural intervention.

The Greek world's first paid-up intellectual was Thales of Miletus (on the Aegean seaboard of western Turkey today), who lived around 600BC. He not only fell down wells while contemplating the heavens (as all proper intellectuals should), but also predicted a total solar eclipse (here he was fortunate to be heir to the discoveries and records of Babylonians and Egyptians before him), thus robbing it of potential divine mystique, and once made a substantial profit by successfully predicting a bumper olive harvest. Thales and his followers had a particular interest in the kosmos: a non-human universe that was hypothetically ordered and orderly. The way to study it was through historia: empirical enquiry or research.

Science

The results they came up with were hardly what we would call scientific. That was left for the doctors of the school of medicine, founded by Hippocrates in the fifth century BC on the east Aegean island of Kos; and the astronomers attached to the museum and library of Alexandria in Egypt in the third century BC. The latter spawned intellectual giants such as Eratosthenes from Cyrene in today's Libya, who successfully measured the Earth's circumference to within a small margin of error.

Despite these giant steps, it is important to remember that most ordinary Greeks were not persuaded to adopt a rationalist, non-theistic world outlook, nor were they always tolerant of the eccentric intellectuals they harboured in their midst – especially not at times of great societal crisis such as the Peloponnesian War (431–404BC). A case in point was the trial and execution of Socrates at Athens, by a democratic jury of 501 mostly "ordinary" Athenian citizens, in 399BC.

Socrates was convicted of "introducing brand-new, publicly unrecognised divinities" without the Athenian people's say-so, and of "corrupting the young". Both charges carried particular weight in the fraught circumstances of 399BC: this was just a few years after the Athenians' total defeat in the Peloponnesian war by Sparta, an enemy that prided itself on its conservative traditionalism in all matters concerning the gods. That its oligarchic junta had done to death many hundreds of ordinary Athenians was still fresh in the memory. The trial of Socrates and its outcome should remind us that democratic Athens, despite being a relatively open society, was no liberal paradise of principled religious tolerance

Economics

Series: Guides to the ancient worldPrevious | Next | Index Greece: Birthplace of the modern world?It had paid-up intellectuals and progressive politics, yet ancient Greece was less civil than we are inclined to remember, says Paul Cartledge

Share88 Paul Cartledge guardian.co.uk, Sunday 7 November 2010 12.00 GMT Article history
BFR92R The Acropolis, Athens, Greece as it would have appeared in ancient times. Photograph: Classic Image/Alamy

E pluribus unum: "out of many – one". The one-time motto of the US reminds us that, much like most of the larger nation states today, ancient Greece was a mosaic of very different components: about 1,000 of them at any one time between c600BC and AD330. That is, there were a thousand or so separate, often radically self-differentiated political entities, most of which went by the title of polis, or citizen-state. Our term "Greece" is derived from the Romans' Latin name, Graecia, whereas the ancient Greeks spoke of Hellas – meaning sometimes the Aegean Greek heartland, at other times the entire, hypertrophied Hellenic world – and referred to themselves as "Hellenes".

In the foundational epics attributed to Homer, however, you won't find Greeks referred to as "Hellenes" but as "Achaeans", "Danaans", or "Argives". That was because the epics are set in a period before "Hellas" and "Hellenes" had become common currency – before, that is, the eighth century BC, when Greeks first started emigrating permanently from the Aegean basin and settling around the Mediterranean and Black Seas. By the time of Plato, around 400BC, Hellas stretched from the Pillars of Heracles (straits of Gibraltar) in the west to Phasis in Colchis (in modern Georgia) in the far east. Later, following the conquests of Alexander the Great, the pale of Hellenic settlement was extended even further eastwards, as far as Afghanistan and the Indus Valley of Pakistan.

Everyone who was not a Hellene by birth, language or culture was labelled a barbaros. Originally an onomatopoeic description of anyone who spoke a non-Greek, unintelligible language, barbaros came to acquire the pejorative connotations of "barbarous" and "barbaric". The Romans took the same sort of view of all non-Romans – excepting only Hellenes – which is how those emotive terms entered our own language.

United Greece
Alexander the Great fighting in the Battle of Issus, ca. 310 B.C., based on Roman Mosaic from the House of the Faun, Pompeii, Italy Photograph: © Bettmann/CORBIS The transformational turning point came in the first decades of the fifth century BC, in the course of the epic conflict known from the Greek standpoint as the Persian Wars. The mighty Persian empire, the fastest growing and largest oriental empire yet, had threatened to swallow up mainland Greece as well as those Greeks who lived within the bounds of what the Persians considered their own sphere – Asia. But on the battlefields of Marathon, Salamis, Plataea and Mycale, a relative handful of Greek communities managed to unite long enough to repulse that threat – for ever, as it turned out. Indeed, Alexander turned the tables by conquering the old Persian empire and starting to create a new Helleno-Persian successor: oriental in its underlying administrative and symbolic structure, but Greek in unifying language and high culture.

Furthermore, the Greeks' unexpected victories over the Persians of 490 and 480-479BC unleashed an era of unparalleled cultural creativity – from Aeschylus's tragic drama Persians of 472BC to the mathematical genius of Archimedes. However, united though they were by religion and common social customs and by at least partly fictional self-images, these Greeks were very much not united by one of their major contributions to the sum of human achievement – politics.

Much of our everyday political language is of ancient Greek derivation: monarchy, tyranny, oligarchy, aristocracy, plutocracy, democracy – not to mention the word "politics" itself. Much of the rest is Latin-derived: constitution, republic, empire, among others. But the Latin for "democracy" was democratia, a loan-word, because actually the Romans didn't do democracy – at least not in the original ancient Greek sense of the term; and they recognised, as we all do or should, that in this sphere the Greeks had been the original pioneers.

However, the ancient Greeks' demokratia was hugely different not just in scale but in kind from any modern political system that claims the title of "democracy". That was partly because the fundamental ancient Greek political unit, the polis, was a strong community in a very exclusive sense: only adult male citizens could consider themselves politically entitled. Even then, the ancient Greeks typically ruled themselves directly, in that they did not select rulers to rule over and for them. Theirs were direct, participatory self-governments, whereas ours are notionally "representative".

But democracy, so far from being the ancient Greek norm, was at first a rare and rather fragile plant: only later did it become about as widely distributed as various forms of oligarchy. And only in a few cases – in Athens, above all – was it both deeply rooted and conspicuously radical. At all times and in all places it remained more or less controversial. And there was a good linguistic reason for this. Demokratia was a compound of demos and kratos. But whereas kratos unambiguously meant "grip" or "power", demos could be interpreted to mean either "people" (in a vague sense, as in Abraham Lincoln's famous words at Gettysburg: "government of the people, by the people, for the people") or very specifically "the masses": the poor majority of the enfranchised citizen body (which might range in size from as few as 500, as on the island-state of Melos in the Cyclades, to as many as the 50,000 citizens of democratic Athens).

So if you liked demokratia, it could mean People Power, but if you hated it – if, say, you were a member of the wealthy elite – then it could stand for the ancient Greek equivalent of Lenin's dictatorship of the proletariat.

By and large the Romans took the second view, which is why they went to great lengths to stamp it out within their empire – the eastern half of which was basically Greek – in the end with total success. It therefore took a great deal of effort and ingenuity in the 19th century to rehabilitate "democracy" as a viably positive term of political discourse – and even then only at the cost of draining it of the active, participatory, class-conscious dimension the Athenians had given it.

Worship and sacrifice

A popular proverb says that the ancient Greeks "had a word for it". But actually they didn't always. A conspicuous example is that they had no word for our "religion", which is taken from Latin. Our manifold and multifarious legacy from the ancient Greeks does not include their polytheistic religion – which was superseded and suppressed by various forms of Judaeo-Christianity and then Islam. These latter faiths are all based on the presumption of a single deity, and on privileged hierarchies of vocational officials who interpret their sacred texts and dogmas. The ancient Greeks' "things of the gods", on the other hand, needed no clergy, dogma or doctrine: formulaic rituals mattered above all.

It is easy for us today to be over-impressed by the standing remains of monumental temples such as those on the Acropolis of Athens or of Greek Acragas (Agrigento in Sicily), or by reports of now lost wonders such as the huge seated cult-statue of Zeus at Olympia, crafted by master sculptor Pheidias of Athens in the 430sBC. For most Greeks the object of their greatest devotion was an altar, whether domestic or public. The most characteristic act of religious worship was the performance of a sacrifice, such as a gift of olive oil, wine or grain, or the killing of a pig or chicken. These offerings symbolised both communion between the god or goddess and their mortal worshippers, as well as the unbridgeable gulf that separated the human from the super-human. Though the Greeks' gods and goddesses were represented in human shape, they were regarded rather as powers – immeasurably more powerful than puny mortals.

Myths

Another unique feature about the Greek deities was that they didn't have a hand in creating the world. In fact, they themselves were created only after a void state of chaos. We refer to these stories about the Greek gods' supernatural origins and functions as "myths". But for the Greeks a myth was a traditional tale that could have a purely secular, mortal content. Indeed, it was a prime marker of advanced intellectuals' sceptical, rational, critical outlook that "myth" came to be downgraded as a derogatory term meaning something like a romantic fiction. And it was a condition of the Greeks' achievements in philosophy and the natural sciences that they managed to reason without invoking mythology, conducting their ideas on the understanding that the natural and human worlds could in principle be explained without recourse to the hypothesis of supernatural intervention.

The Greek world's first paid-up intellectual was Thales of Miletus (on the Aegean seaboard of western Turkey today), who lived around 600BC. He not only fell down wells while contemplating the heavens (as all proper intellectuals should), but also predicted a total solar eclipse (here he was fortunate to be heir to the discoveries and records of Babylonians and Egyptians before him), thus robbing it of potential divine mystique, and once made a substantial profit by successfully predicting a bumper olive harvest. Thales and his followers had a particular interest in the kosmos: a non-human universe that was hypothetically ordered and orderly. The way to study it was through historia: empirical enquiry or research.

Science

The results they came up with were hardly what we would call scientific. That was left for the doctors of the school of medicine, founded by Hippocrates in the fifth century BC on the east Aegean island of Kos; and the astronomers attached to the museum and library of Alexandria in Egypt in the third century BC. The latter spawned intellectual giants such as Eratosthenes from Cyrene in today's Libya, who successfully measured the Earth's circumference to within a small margin of error.

Despite these giant steps, it is important to remember that most ordinary Greeks were not persuaded to adopt a rationalist, non-theistic world outlook, nor were they always tolerant of the eccentric intellectuals they harboured in their midst – especially not at times of great societal crisis such as the Peloponnesian War (431–404BC). A case in point was the trial and execution of Socrates at Athens, by a democratic jury of 501 mostly "ordinary" Athenian citizens, in 399BC.

Socrates was convicted of "introducing brand-new, publicly unrecognised divinities" without the Athenian people's say-so, and of "corrupting the young". Both charges carried particular weight in the fraught circumstances of 399BC: this was just a few years after the Athenians' total defeat in the Peloponnesian war by Sparta, an enemy that prided itself on its conservative traditionalism in all matters concerning the gods. That its oligarchic junta had done to death many hundreds of ordinary Athenians was still fresh in the memory. The trial of Socrates and its outcome should remind us that democratic Athens, despite being a relatively open society, was no liberal paradise of principled religious tolerance.

Economics

Socrates is the main participant in a fictional dialogue composed by the versatile Athenian historian Xenophon (c428-355BC), entitled (in Latin transliteration) Oeconomicus. Yet "economics" in our sense is not what the discourse is about, but rather the management of an oikos or "household".

The Greeks "did" economics, practically speaking, but they did not theorise it as we do. This was partly because they did not develop a suitable macro-economic technical vocabulary but also because, like their politics and religion, their economic realities were very different from those of a capitalist, let alone a globalised, economy. Most Greeks lived on and from the land. This is not to deny that local, regional and international trading networks could be crucially important, not least when the commodity being traded was a life-giving staple such as grain. But as much as 80% of the typical population of a typical polis were employed in peasant-style, non-market-oriented agriculture, working to satisfy needs rather than maximise profit.

Women and slaves

Women, whose public valuation by men was often distressingly low, were economically crucial within the household, where they processed food, produced children and clothing, and managed the free or unfree workforce.

The modern Greek term for housewife, noikokyra ("lady of the household") had its ancient counterpart, especially in Sparta, where women vied not just to control but to own more than one household property. Elsewhere in Greece, women's property rights were severely limited. Indeed, it wouldn't have been uncommon for a wealthy Greek house-lord to think of his womenfolk as little better than the chattel slaves he owned. Ordinary Greeks, of course, might not have had the luxury of owning even a single slave, greatly desirable though that was thought to be.

Most slaves were individually and privately owned, having been bought on the market as commodities. But some slaves – such as the gaolers of Socrates – were public servants. At Athens, there was an exceptional concentration of slave worker personnel in the state-owned silver mines, who were economically vital: the product of their labours paid for Athens' navy and a wide variety of other public and political services.

In Sparta they managed their servile system very differently. Although there were some chattel-type (privately owned) slaves, the dominant form of servitude here was a kind of collective serfdom, known as helotage. And whereas most chattel slaves were dispossessed, non-Greek foreigners, the Helots were born into inherited bondage: this, perhaps, a final reminder of just how alien ancient Greece can be, for all its status as one of the fountainheads of western civilisation.

Paul Cartledge is AG Leventis Professor of Greek culture at Cambridge University and the author of several books, most recently Ancient Greece: A History in Eleven Cities (Oxford University Press)

Quran and Islam about the Great Alexander

2010-10-30T10:53:00.002+03:00

Population changes in Macedonia under Ottoman Rule(14th-18th cent)

2010-10-02T11:25:00.002+03:00

The first century of Ottoman rule in Macedonia is characterized by a marked decrease in the Christian population which was primarily due to Muslim Turkic colonization. The Yuruks, a semi-nomadic Turkic tribe, represented the majority of the newcomers, having already appeared in Macedonia since the 14th century. Most ofthem settled in the region of Thessaloniki, in Central and Western Macedonia (Yenitsa, Kilkis, Strornnitsa, Servia, Florina) and as far north as Monastir (Bitola). At the same time, the Christian populations retreated either to the western and southern mountainous regions or to Chalcidice.2

Towards the end of the 15th century it was the tum of Jews to come in lagre numbers from Central and Western Europe and settle, mainly in Thessaloniki. The Askenazim, Jews of German and Hungarian origin, were the first to arrive, but the most numerous group was that of Spanish Jews who were expelled from Spain in 1492. Other groups came from Sicily and Southern Italy and still more from Portugal in 1497. Jews of Western origin came to be known collectively as Sefardim (Spanish Jews). During the 16th century the Jewish element moved towards the interior of Macedonia and by the end of the century Jewish communities had been established at Skopje (Uskub), Monastir, Kavala, Drama, Serres, Siderocausia of Chalcidice, and elsewhere.3

However, the Jews were not the only mobile part of the population during the 16th century. Christian populations also began to move towards the plains. One part headed for Chalcidice where metallurgy was flourishing:
The most important movement ofpopulation was the resettlement of Vlachs from Agrapha and Acheloos, who began to move to Macedonia and, to a significant extent, to urbanize. The urbanization of the Vlachs as well of other local Greek and Vlach populations during the following century resulted in the depopulation of the interior of Macedonia; this facilitated the continuous flow of peasant Slav populations southwards.4

These movements seem to be confirmed by a recent study on Western Macedonia, according to which the population decreased by one quarter before 1641, following the relative swell of late 16th century. After this period and until 1683 the population of the western Macedonian plateaux seems to have remained stable, but a new decrease followed during the years of the Austrian-Turkish wars (1683-1711).During that turbulent period the islamization process, which had not ceased during the 16th century, intensified. The most characteristic example is the case of the Valaades, Christians turned Muslim (in the 19th century they constituted 25% ofthe population of the AliaJanon valley) who, however, had been hardly turkicized by the time ofthe Greek-Turkish exchange of populations.5

However, islamization in the 17th century was not the bane of Christians only. By mid-century, the Jewish communities were divided by the preachings of the pseudo-messiah Sabetai Chvi from Smyrna. After a ten-year activity, he was arrested by the Turks and eventually, in 1666, he was converted to Islam. Subsequently, many of his followers were islamized too, preserving, however, their Jewish customs. The so-called Donmeh (converted), although they gradually adopted the Turkish language, remained firmly aloof from genuine Muslims and Jews alike until the day of the exchange of populations.6

In Western Macedonia there was a considerable growth of population during the 1700s (about 50% from 1711 to 1788) followed by a decline towards the end of the centUry. In the sanjaks of Thessaloniki and Kavala it seems that the growth did not exceed 100% between the 16th and 18th centuries. Regarding the Christian population, in particular, whose ranks were decimated by islamization and emigration to Central Europe, the percentage of growth was only 50% -an annual rate of a mere 0.16%, compared to a 0.50% for the rest of Europe. For exactly the opposite reasons, which included extensive colonization, the Muslim share of the population grew. Considerable was the increase in the numbers of Jews, who, however, remained a small minority, some 40,000 in both sanjaks, out of an estimated total of 600,000. Of course, the value of such estimates regarding any particular district is limited. Thus, it was surmised that the Christian population of the villages in the region of Thessaloniki might have quintupled between late 15th and early 18th century’s.

At the turn of the 19th century (1801) the traveller Edward Clarke estimated the total population of Macedonia at 700,000. The first general Ottoman census, which was waged in 1831 and covered only the male population, proved Clarke's estimate inaccurate. According to it, the vilayet of Thessaloniki (Selanik, including probably some regions of Thessaly too) had the greatest proportion of Turkish population of all the European provinces of the Empire (41.70%). The male population amounted to 240,411 (127,200 Christians, 100,249 Muslims, 7,047 Gypsies and 5,915 Jews). In the vilayet of Monastir there were 208,222 male inhabitants (120,582 Christians, 81,736 Muslims, 4,682 Gypsies, 1,136 Jews, 24 Armenians and 35 of other religious affiliations).9

By Vasilis Gounaris
This text is from the Volume 1 of the book “Modern and Contemporary Macedonia ” and the article “Demographic Developments in Macedonia Under Ottoman Rule”, pages 44-46. Sources and bibliography at the book.

Recent Research on ancient Macedonia by Pr. R. Malcolm Errington

2010-09-21T22:54:00.000+03:00

Recent Research on ancient Macedonia by Pr. R. Malcolm Errington

Source:istorie.ugal.ro

Writer Marko Attila Hoare fails

2010-09-19T13:34:00.007+03:00

Writer Marko Attila Hoare, a British integral nationalist (see Smith at national identity 1991, page 79) in a recent article at his blog(http://greatersurbiton.wordpress.com), try to explain the nationality of the ancient Macedonians.
How a modern writer try to define the nationality in a field of the Classicism raise a lot of questions.
Hoare's article fails in two things.

First fail is to take adequately into account the important distinction, first proposed by Max Weber (1921) and since used by social anthropologists, between objective and subjective ethnicity. Objective ethnicity is a biological category which defines groups of human beings in terms of their shared physical characteristics resulting from a common gene pool. Subjective ethnicity, however, describes the ideology of an ethnic group by defining as shared its ancestors, history, language, mode of production, religion, customs, culture, etc., and is therefore a social construct, not a fact of nature (Isajiw 1974).

Objective and subjective ethnicity may and often do overlap, and the subjective, ideological boundaries between ethnic groups may be commensurate with objective ethnic boundaries (Barth 1969), especially where an ethnic group has been isolated or has rigorously avoided intermarriage.

Second fail is the...
subjective definitions of ethnicity. These definitions by their very nature as social constructs are open to challenge. Different people can define a particular ethnic group's genealogy in different ways according to their contingent purposes at the time. In order to define a “nationality” in ancient Greece , particularly the controverted question of the “nationality” of the ancient Macedonians, not only because language is, at best, only one of the several elements which contribute to the formation of group identity, but also –and mainly– because such a debate presupposed a previous response to the question of the nature of “nationality” in ancient Greece, provided of course that this question is well formulated and admits an effective answer.

Jonathan Hall (Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, page 172) in his research regarding the Macedonian nationality and in his conclusions confirms the Classists doubts about the possibility of answering the question concerning the “nationality” of the ancient Macedonians: “To ask whether the Macedonians ‘really were’ Greek or not in antiquity“, he writes, “is ultimately a redundant question given the shifting semantics of Greekness between the sixth and fourth centuries B.C. What cannot be denied, however, is that the cultural commodification of Hellenic identity that emerged in the fourth century might have remained a provincial artifact, confined to the Balkan peninsula, had it not been for the Macedonians”.

There is no consensus on the issue of Macedonian ethnicity: whether the Macedonians were of Greek or mixed descent. Of course Macedonians were not Slavs as usual claim the Slavonic officials of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Marko Attila Hoare never explains if believes what the main history stream of this tiny State claim.

In the archaic and classical period the Macedonians perceived themselves to be Greeks and were also perceived to be Greeks by the other Greeks. When they first became involved in affairs that concerned the Southern Greeks, and then major players in Southern Greek politics, their ethnicity became open to rhetorical manipulation, or rather, they became vulnerable to the cultural insult ‘barbarian,’ with the help of the deployment of the ‘cultural inferiority’ meaning of ‘barbarian’, so that the accusation was not unambiguously about ethnicity. It is not that perceptions of the Greekness of the Macedonians became unstable; it was the acknowledgement of their Greekness that became unstable at the level of rhetoric, it was manipulated as a weapon. But in Greek eyes the Greek identity of the Macedonians was indelibly sealed through their admittance as participants in the Panhellenic Games, which in the Greek collective representations defined Greekness, and defined not simply the individual, but also, I hope to have made clear, his polis or ethnos, as Greek. Pr Hammond in his works the above circumstances had in his mind when wrote "The Macedonians in general did not consider themselves Greeks, nor were they considered Greeks by their neighbours.” Marko Attila Hoare put a sentence and tried to change the known view of Pr Hammond. Also Slav Macedonians ultranationalists from the FYROM use this point of view. I hope Marko Attila Hoare do not adopt apart or whole of all theirs thesis.

In my blog I have post a lot of articles regarding the ancient Macedonian background. I suggest to Pr. Marko Attila Hoare to read these articles carefully and reject the influence of the Slavmacedonism propaganda that fluid his articles regarding the Greece and Greek people.

Finally I would like to suggest to Hoare for further reading two books:The "Hellenicity" by Jonathan Hall and the "Ancient perceptions in Greek ethnicity" by IraD Malkin. Maybe he will understand and realize that this confusion is a consequence of the nature of the ancient source material and the influence of modern politics, especially after 1991 when the 'new state' of the FYROM was formed.

Shah Nameh/Sikander(Great Alexander)

2010-09-16T20:08:00.002+03:00

The Shahnameh (The King's Chronicles) is an enormous poetic opus written by the Persian poet Ferdowsi around 1000 AD and is the national epic of the cultural sphere of Greater Persia. Consisting of some 60,000 verses, the Shāhnāmeh tells the mythical and historical past of Greater Iran from the creation of the world up until the Islamic conquest of Persia in the 7th century. The work is of central importance in Persian culture, regarded as a literary masterpiece, and definitive of ethno-national cultural identity of Iran.

The Shâhnameh recounts the history of Persia, beginning with the creation of the world and the introduction of the arts of civilization (fire, cooking, metallurgy, law) to the Aryans and ends with the Arab conquest of Persia. The work is not precisely chronological, but there is a general movement through time. Some of the characters live for hundreds of years but most have normal life spans.

The work is divided into three successive parts: the mythical, heroic, and historical ages. At the the historical age A brief mention of the Ashkānīyān dynasty follows the history of Alexander and precedes that of Ardashir I, the founder of the Sassanid dynasty.

The following text describe the age of the Great Alexander.

Failakús(Philip II), before his death, placed the crown of sovereignty upon the head of Sikander(Alexander), and appointed Aristú(Aristotle), who was one of the disciples of the great Aflátún(Plato), his vizir. He cautioned him to pursue the path of virtue and rectitude, and to cast from his heart every feeling of vanity and pride; above all he implored him to be just and merciful, and said:--

"Think not that thou art wise, but ignorant,
And ever listen to advice and counsel;
We are but dust, and from the dust created;
And what our lives but helplessness and sorrow!"

Sikander for a time attended faithfully to the instructions of his father, and to the counsel of Aristú, both in public and private affairs.

Upon Sikander's elevation to the throne, Dárá(Darius) sent an envoy to him to claim the customary tribute, but he received for answer: "The time is past when Rúm(Greece) acknowledged the superiority of Persia. It is now thy turn to pay tribute to Rúm(Greece). If my demand be refused, I will immediately invade thy dominions; and think not that I shall be satisfied with the conquest of Persia alone, the whole world shall be mine; therefore prepare for war." Dárá had no alternative, not even submission, and accordingly assembled his army, for Sikander was already in full march against him. Upon the confines of Persia the armies came in sight of each other, when Sikander, in the assumed character of an envoy, was resolved to ascertain the exact condition of the enemy. With this view he entered the Persian camp, and Dárá allowing the person whom he supposed an ambassador, to approach, enquired what message the king of Rúm had sent to him. "Hear me!" said the pretended envoy: "Sikander has not invaded thy empire for the exclusive purpose of fighting, but to know its history, its laws, and customs, from personal inspection. His object is to travel through the whole world. Why then should he make war upon thee? Give him but a free passage through thy kingdom, and nothing more is required. However if it be thy wish to proceed to hostilities, he apprehends nothing from the greatness of thy power." Dárá was astonished at the majestic air and dignity of the envoy, never having witnessed his equal, and he anxiously said:--

"What is thy name, from whom art thou descended?
For that commanding front, that fearless eye,
Bespeaks illustrious birth. Art thou indeed
Sikander, whom my fancy would believe thee,
So eloquent in speech, in mien so noble?"
"No!" said the envoy, "no such rank is mine,
Sikander holds among his numerous host
Thousands superior to the humble slave
Who stands before thee. It is not for me
To put upon myself the air of kings,
To ape their manners and their lofty state."

Dárá could not help smiling, and ordered refreshments and wine to be brought. He filled a cup and gave it to the envoy, who drank it off, but did not, according to custom, return the empty goblet to the cup-bearer. The cup-bearer demanded the cup, and Dárá asked the envoy why he did not give it back. "It is the custom in my country," said the envoy, "when a cup is once given into an ambassador's hands, never to receive it back again." Dárá was still more amused by this explanation, and presented to him another cup, and successively four, which the envoy did not fail to appropriate severally in the same way. In the evening a feast was held, and Sikander partook of the delicious refreshments that had been prepared for him; but in the midst of the entertainment one of the persons present recognized him, and immediately whispered to Dárá that his enemy was in his power.

Sikander's sharp and cautious eye now marked
The changing scene, and up he sprang, but first
Snatched the four cups, and rushing from the tent,
Vaulted upon his horse, and rode away.
So instantaneous was the act, amazed
The assembly rose, and presently a troop
Was ordered in pursuit--but night, dark night,
Baffled their search, and checked their eager speed.

As soon as he reached his own army, he sent for Aristátalís and his courtiers, and exultingly displayed to them the four golden cups. "These," said he, "have I taken from my enemy, I have taken them from his own table, and before his own eyes. His strength and numbers too I have ascertained, and my success is certain." No time was now lost in arrangements for the battle. The armies engaged, and they fought seven days without a decisive blow being struck. On the eighth, Dárá was compelled to fly, and his legions, defeated and harassed, were pursued by the Rúmís with great slaughter to the banks of the Euphrates. Sikander now returned to take possession of the capital. In the meantime Dárá collected his scattered forces together, and again tried his fortune, but he was again defeated. After his second success, the conqueror devoted himself so zealously to conciliate and win the affections of the people, that they soon ceased to remember their former king with any degree of attachment to his interests. Sikander said to them: "Persia indeed is my inheritance: I am no stranger to you, for I am myself descended from Dáráb; you may therefore safely trust to my justice and paternal care, in everything that concerns your welfare." The result was, that legion after legion united in his cause, and consolidated his power.

When Dárá was informed of the universal disaffection of his army, he said to the remaining friends who were personally devoted to him: "Alas! my subjects have been deluded by the artful dissimulation and skill of Sikander; your next misfortune will be the captivity of your wives and children. Yes, your wives and children will be made the slaves of the conquerors." A few troops, still faithful to their unfortunate king, offered to make another effort against the enemy, and Dárá was too grateful and too brave to discountenance their enthusiastic fidelity, though with such little chance of success. A fragment of an army was consequently brought into action, and the result was what had been anticipated. Dárá was again a fugitive; and after the defeat, escaped with three hundred men into the neighboring desert. Sikander captured his wife and family, but magnanimously restored them to the unfortunate monarch, who, destitute of all further hope, now asked for a place of refuge in his own dominions, and for that he offered him all the buried treasure of his ancestors. Sikander, in reply, invited him to his presence; and promised to restore him to his throne, that he might himself be enabled to pursue other conquests; but Dárá refused to go, although advised by his nobles to accept the invitation. "I am willing to put myself to death," said he with emotion, "but I cannot submit to this degradation. I cannot go before him, and thus personally acknowledge his authority over me." Resolved upon this point, he wrote to Faúr, one of the sovereigns of Ind, to request his assistance, and Faúr recommended that he should pay him a visit for the purpose of concerting what measures should be adopted. This correspondence having come to the knowledge of Sikander, he took care that his enemy should be intercepted in whatever direction he might proceed.

Dárá had two ministers, named Mahiyár and Jamúsipár, who, finding that according to the predictions of the astrologers their master would in a few days fall into the hands of Sikander, consulted together, and thought they had better put him to death themselves, in order that they might get into favor with Sikander. It was night, and the soldiers of the escort were dispersed at various distances, and the vizirs were stationed on each side of the king. As they travelled on, Jamúsipár took an opportunity of plunging his dagger into Dárá's side, and Mahiyár gave another blow, which felled the monarch to the ground. They immediately sent the tidings of this event to Sikander, who hastened to the spot, and the opening daylight presented to his view the wounded king.

Dismounting quickly, he in sorrow placed
The head of Dárá on his lap, and wept
In bitterness of soul, to see that form
Mangled with ghastly wounds.

Dárá still breathed; and when he lifted up his eyes and beheld Sikander, he groaned deeply. Sikander said, "Rise up, that we may convey thee to a place of safety, and apply the proper remedies to thy wounds."--"Alas!" replied Dárá, "the time for remedies is past. I leave thee to Heaven, and may thy reign give peace and happiness to the empire."--"Never," said Sikander, "never did I desire to see thee thus mangled and fallen--never to witness this sight! If the Almighty should spare thy life, thou shalt again be the monarch of Persia, and I will go from hence. On my mother's word, thou and I are sons of the same father. It is this brotherly affection which now wrings my heart!" Saying this, the tears chased each other down his cheeks in such abundance that they fell upon the face of Dárá. Again, he said, "Thy murderers shall meet with merited vengeance, they shall be punished to the uttermost." Dárá blessed him, and said, "My end is approaching, but thy sweet discourse and consoling kindness have banished all my grief. I shall now die with a mind at rest. Weep no more--

"My course is finished, thine is scarce begun;
But hear my dying wish, my last request:
Preserve the honour of my family,
Preserve it from disgrace. I have a daughter
Dearer to me than life, her name is Roshung;
Espouse her, I beseech thee--and if Heaven
Should bless thee with a boy, O! let his name be
Isfendiyár, that he may propagate
With zeal the sacred doctrines of Zerdusht,
The Zendavesta, then my soul will be
Happy in Heaven; and he, at Náu-rúz tide,
Will also hold the festival I love,
And at the altar light the Holy Fire;
Nor will he cease his labour, till the faith
Of Lohurásp be everywhere accepted,
And everywhere believed the true religion."

Sikander promised that he would assuredly fulfil the wishes he had expressed, and then Dárá placed the palm of his brother's hand on his mouth, and shortly afterwards expired. Sikander again wept bitterly, and then the body was placed on a golden couch, and he attended it in sorrow to the grave.

After the burial of Dárá, the two ministers, Jamúsipár and Mahiyár, were brought near the tomb, and executed upon the dar.

Just vengeance upon the guilty head,
For they their generous monarch's blood had shed.

Sikander had now no rival to the throne of Persia, and he commenced his government under the most favorable auspices. He continued the same customs and ordinances which were handed down to him, and retained every one in his established rank and occupation. He gladdened the heart by his justice and liberality. Keeping in mind his promise to Dárá, he now wrote to the mother of Roshung, and communicating to her the dying solicitations of the king, requested her to send Roshung to him, that he might fulfil the last wish of his brother. The wife of Dárá immediately complied with the command, and sent her daughter with various presents to Sikander, and she was on her arrival married to the conqueror, acceding to the customs and laws of the empire. Sikander loved her exceedingly, and on her account remained some time in Persia, but he at length determined to proceed into Ind to conquer that country of enchanters and enchantment.

On approaching Ind he wrote to Kaid, summoning him to surrender his kingdom, and received from him the following answer: "I will certainly submit to thy authority, but I have four things which no other person in the world possesses, and which I cannot relinquish. I have a daughter, beautiful as an angel of Paradise, a wise minister, a skilful physician, and a goblet of inestimable value!" Upon receiving this extraordinary reply, Sikander again addressed a letter to him, in which he peremptorily required all these things immediately. Kaid not daring to refuse, or make any attempt at evasion, reluctantly complied with the requisition. Sikander received the minister and the physician with great politeness and attention, and in the evening held a splendid feast, at which he espoused the beautiful daughter of Kaid, and taking the goblet from her hands, drank off the wine with which it was filled. After that, Kaid himself waited upon Sikander, and personally acknowledged his authority and dominion.

Sikander then proceeded to claim the allegiance and homage of Faúr, the king of Kanúj, and wrote to him to submit to his power; but Faúr returned a haughty answer, saying:--

"Kaid Indí is a coward to obey thee,
But I am Faúr, descended from a race
Of matchless warriors; and shall I submit,
And to a Greek!"

Sikander was highly incensed at this bold reply. The force he had now with him amounted to eighty thousand men; that is, thirty thousand Iránians, forty thousand Rúmís, and ten thousand Indís. Faúr had sixty thousand horsemen, and two thousand elephants. The troops of Sikander were greatly terrified at the sight of so many elephants, which gave the enemy such a tremendous superiority. Aristátalís, and some other ingenious counsellors, were requested to consult together to contrive some means of counteracting the power of the war-elephants, and they suggested the construction of an iron horse, and the figure of a rider also of iron, to be placed upon wheels like a carriage, and drawn by a number of horses. A soldier, clothed in iron armor, was to follow the vehicle--his hands and face besmeared with combustible matter, and this soldier, armed with a long staff, was at an appointed signal, to pierce the belly of the horse and also of the rider, previously filled with combustibles, so that when the ignited point came in contact with them, the whole engine would make a tremendous explosion and blaze in the air. Sikander approved of this invention, and collected all the blacksmiths and artisans in the country to construct a thousand machines of this description with the utmost expedition, and as soon as they were completed, he prepared for action. Faúr too pushed forward with his two thousand elephants in advance; but when the Kanújians beheld such a formidable array they were surprised, and Faúr anxiously inquired from his spies what it could be. Upon being told that it was Sikander's artillery, his troops pushed the elephants against the enemy with vigor, at which moment the combustibles were fired by the Rúmís, and the machinery exploding, many elephants were burnt and destroyed, and the remainder, with the troops, fled in confusion. Sikander then encountered Faúr, and after a severe contest, slew him, and became ruler of the kingdom of Kanúj.

After the conquest of Kanúj, Sikander went to Mekka, carrying thither rich presents and offerings. From thence he proceeded to another city, where he was received with great homage by the most illustrious of the nation. He enquired of them if there was anything wonderful or extraordinary in their country, that he might go to see it, and they replied that there were two trees in the kingdom, one a male, the other a female, from which a voice proceeded. The male-tree spoke in the day, and the female-tree in the night, and whoever had a wish, went thither to have his desires accomplished. Sikander immediately repaired to the spot, and approaching it, he hoped in his heart that a considerable part of his life still remained to be enjoyed. When he came under the tree, a terrible sound arose and rung in his ears, and he asked the people present what it meant. The attendant priest said it implied that fourteen years of his life still remained. Sikander, at this interpretation of the prophetic sound, wept and the burning tears ran down his cheeks. Again he asked, "Shall I return to Rúm, and see my mother and children before I die?" and the answer was, "Thou wilt die at Kashán.[51]

"Nor mother, nor thy family at home
Wilt thou behold again, for thou wilt die,
Closing thy course of glory at Kashán."

Sikander left the place in sorrow, and pursued his way towards Rúm. In his progress he arrived at another city, and the inhabitants gave him the most honorable welcome, representing to him, however, that they were dreadfully afflicted by the presence of two demons or giants, who constantly assailed them in the night, devouring men and goats and whatever came in their way. Sikander asked their names; and they replied, Yájuj and Májuj (Gog and Magog). He immediately ordered a barrier to be erected five hundred yards high, and three hundred yards wide, and when it was finished he went away. The giants, notwithstanding all their efforts, were unable to scale this barrier, and in consequence the inhabitants pursued their occupations without the fear of molestation.

To scenes of noble daring still he turned
His ardent spirit--for he knew not fear.
Still he led on his legions--and now came
To a strange place, where countless numbers met
His wondering view--countless inhabitants
Crowding the city streets, and neighbouring plains;
And in the distance presently he saw
A lofty mountain reaching to the stars.
Onward proceeding, at its foot he found
A guardian-dragon, terrible in form,
Ready with open jaws to crush his victim;
But unappalled, Sikander him beholding
With steady eye, which scorned to turn aside,
Sprang forward, and at once the monster slew.

Ascending then the mountain, many a ridge,
Oft resting on the way, he reached the summit,
Where the dead corse of an old saint appeared
Wrapt in his grave-clothes, and in gems imbedded.
In gold and precious jewels glittering round,
Seeming to show what man is, mortal man!
Wealth, worldly pomp, the baubles of ambition,
All left behind, himself a heap of dust!

None ever went upon that mountain top,
But sought for knowledge; and Sikander hoped
When he had reached its cloudy eminence,
To see the visions of futurity
Arise from that departed, holy man!
And soon he heard a voice: "Thy time is nigh!
Yet may I thy career on earth unfold.
It will be thine to conquer many a realm,
Win many a crown; thou wilt have many friends
And numerous foes, and thy devoted head
Will be uplifted to the very heavens.
Renowned and glorious shalt thou be; thy name
Immortal; but, alas! thy time is nigh!"
At these prophetic words Sikander wept,
And from that ominous mountain hastened down.

After that Sikander journeyed on to the city of Kashán, where he fell sick, and in a few days, according to the oracle and the prophecy, expired. He had scarcely breathed his last, when Aristú, and Bilniyás the physician, and his family, entered Kashán, and found him dead. They beat their faces, and tore their hair, and mourned for him forty days.

The Occupants of Tomb II at Vergina. Why Arrhidaios and Eurydice must be excluded

2010-09-10T20:58:00.002+03:00

ON 21 April 2000 Science published an article by Antonis Bartsiokas titled 'The Eye Injury of King Philip II and the Skeletal Evidence from the Royal Tomb II at Vergina'. In it he criticised some observations made by Prag, Neave and Musgrave in earlier publications concerning possible trauma to the cranium and facial asymmetry. In an attempt to identify the man in the main chamber of Tomb II at Vergina as Philip III Arrhidaios rather than Philip II, he also argued that the bones had been burned dry, degreased and unfleshed. This paper answer his criticisms, and refute his dry cremation argument, pointing out that, far from strengthening the claim for Arrhidaios, it weakens it considerably.
Dr Jonathan Musgrave of the University of Bristol's Centre for Comparative and Clinical Anatomy and colleagues argue that evidence from the remains is not consistent with historical records of the life, death and burial of Arrhidaios, a far less prominent figure in the ancient world than his father Philip II.
Dr Musgrave said:

"The aim of this paper is not to press the claims of Philip II and his wife Cleopatra but to draw attention to the flaws in those for Philip III Arrhidaios and Eurydice. We do not believe that the condition of the bones and the circumstances of their interment are consistent with descriptions of the funeral of Arrhidaios, his wife and his mother-in-law."

Open publication - Free publishing - More vergina

Macedonia in the Classical and Hellenistic Periods

2010-08-08T13:49:00.000+03:00

Open publication - Free publishing - More macedonia

Louvre Alexander the Great exhibition to travel to Dion

2010-07-15T14:51:00.001+03:00

A rare exhibition of engravings from the Louvre Museum on Alexander the Great's campaigns, crafted by renowned French artists, will be traveling outside of France for the first time, to be exhibited at the Center of Mediterranean Mosaics in Dion, Pieria prefecture, as part of the 39th annual Olympus Festival.

The Festival proper takes place every summer with concerts and stage performances at the Ancient Theater of Dion, and various fringe events, including exhibitions, are staged in other venues.

.travel-greece.org/nothern_greece/

Prehistoric Macedonia

2010-07-02T22:34:00.001+03:00

Prehistoric Macedonia by Kostas Kotsakis

Slavs in the South Greece

2010-06-16T14:16:00.004+03:00

The first appearance of the Slavs in the Byzantine Empire can be dated no earlier than the 6th century. Throughout this century, beginning with the reign of Justinian, Slavs repeatedly invaded the Balkan possessions of the Byzantine Empire. Not until the reign of Maurice, however, did any Slavs settle in these territories. Between the years 579-587 there took place the irruption of several barbarian waves led by the Avars, but consisting mostlyof Slavs. The latter came in great numbers, and, as the troops of the Empire were engaged in the war with Persia, they roamed the country at will.

Slavs devastated Illyricum and Thrace, penetrated deep into Greece and the Peloponnesus, helped the Avars to take numerous cities, including Singidunum, Viminacium (Kostolac), Durostorum (Silistria), Marcianopolis, Anchialus, and Corinth, and in 586 laid siege to the city of Thessalonica, the first of a series of great sieges which that city was destined to undergo at their handss What is more, they came to stay.

"The Slavonians," wrote John of Ephesus in 584, "still encamp and dwell in the Roman territories and live in peace there, free from anxiety and fear, and lead captives and slay and burn." The counter offensive launched by Maurice after 591, following the successful termination of the Persian war, had the effect, on the whole, of checking the repeated incursions of the Avars, who then seem to have transferred their operations farther west beyond the limits of Byzantine territory. The treaty of peace which the Empire concluded with them in possibly in 601, fixed the Danube as the boundary line between the two powers, but left the way open for the Byzantines to cross that river and chastise any Slavs that might appear dangerous.80 There is no indication, however, that the Slavs who had penetrated into the Empire were forced to retire beyond the Danube, or that they did so of their own accord.

Settlement of the Slavs in the Balkan Peninsula occurred mainly in the....

7th century, more specifically during the disastrous reign of Phocas (602-610) and the early years of Heraclius. The Chronicle of Monemvasia says that as a result of the invasions of the Peloponnesus by the Avars, many of the Peloponnesians emigrated, the Corinthians going to the island of Aegina, which, of course, is not very far from Corinth.

George Ostrogorsky (in brief ) mention as about this Issue:

"...The Slavs in Peloponnesus were in big numbers from 587 to 805, i.e. for 218 years, according to the invaluable "Chronicle of Monemvasia". In 805 took place the open revolt mentioned by Porphyrogenitus. The crashing of the revolt and the slaughter of the Slavs, followed by resettlement by Greeks from Asia Minor and Aegean Islands , marked the end of the strong Slavic Presence in Peloponnesus. The small numbers of Ezeritai and Millingi who survived on the mountain refuge of Taygetos , a very small mountainous area of Peloponese, had no practical consequence on the Byzantine sovereignty, although these people were still there, on their mountain lair, even in the 14th century (last record)...".

The Chronicle of Monemvasia was first used as a primary source for the history of the Slavs in Greece by Jacob Philip Fallmerayer, the German journalist who claimed that the modern Greeks were descendants not of ancient Greeks, but of Slavs and Albanians whose ancestors had settled in Greece during the Middle Ages and had learned to speak Greek from the Byzantine authorities. Monemvasia was founded by Lacedaemonian refugees at the time of the invasion of the Peloponnesus by the Slavs during the reign of Maurice.

Peter Charanis mention as about this:

"...Slavs, then, not only settled in Greece, but did so in considerable numbers. Though the date of this settlement has been a subject of dispute, the evidence points to the period which extended from just before the beginning of the reign of Maurice to the early years of the reign of Heraclius. That more Slavs may have come later in no way alters this fundamental conclusion. The settlement of Slavs in Greece does not, however, mean that the Greek population was completely obliterated. Despite the Slavic flood, the Greeks held their own in eastern Peloponnesus, in central Greece, including Attica (a region which is known to have been a theme as early as 695), and, of course, in the islands. A number of strongholds are known to have remained in the hands of the Byzantines. In the Peloponnesus there was Monemvasia in the south and Corinth in the north. In central Greece there was Athens, where, if we may believe a hagiographical text, a Cappadocian conversed with philosophers and rhetoricians in the 8th century.

And farther north there was Thessalonica. These strongholds, even Thessalonica, were not great urban establishments in the 7th century, nor for that matter in the eighth, but they were to serve as centers for the pacification, absorption, and eventual Hellenization of the Slavs in Greece. Thessalonica in particular may be called the savior of Greece from the Slavs, for had she succumbed to their repeated attacks in the sixth and seventh centuries, the chances are that Greece would have been completely inundated by them. In the end, the Slavs in Greece proper were absorbed and disappeared from history. Fallmerayer's statement that there is no real Hellenic blood in the veins of the modern Greeks cannot, therefore, be accepted...".

Also the great Russian historian Alexander Vasiliev mention as about the Fallmerayrs influence as about his propagandistic work :

"...Scholars have frequently disputed the originality of Fallmerayers theory. His opinion was nothing new. Slavonic influence in Greece had been spoken of before his time, though he was the first to express his judgments decisively and openly. In 1913 a Russian scholar stated on good grounds that the real originator of Fallmerayerʹs theory was Kopitar, a scholar of Slavonic studies in Vienna in the nineteenth century, who developed in his writings the idea of the significant part played by the Slavic element in the formation of the new Greek nation...".

From the above is clear that there is not any question as about in when and where appeared the Slavs in Greek peninsula and specially in Peloponnesus and the most important how long keep the Slavonic stronghold in the specific area.Greek presence was and is strong during in that invasions.Remarkable is the dialogue between Charanis and Setton as about this, given from Florin Curta :

"...Almost half a century ago, three polemical articles appeared in Speculum on seventh century Corinth. Apparently, the debate opposing Peter Charanis to Kenneth Setton was about an obscure episode, the alleged conquest of Corinth by a group of nomads known to Byzantine sources as Onogurs. In fact, at stake was more than just the interpretation of a confusing passage in a late source, namely a letter of Isidore, the fifteenth-century metropolitan of Kiev, who had allegedly preserved "a reminiscence of a Peloponnesian tradition". In his first article, Setton reacted against Charanis's earlier work, in which he had treated the Chronicle of Monemvasia, one of the most controversial sources for the early medieval history of Greece, as "absolutely trustworthy". According to Setton, the Chronicle was no more than "a medley of some fact and some fiction" that historians should use "with caution". Charanis had taken the Chronicle at face value.

By contrast, Setton believed it was ludicrous to claim that the Peloponnese had remained under Avar-Slavic domination for 218 years. According to him, "much of the Slavonisation of the Balkans and of Greece" was the result of peaceful settlement: "unknown numbers of Slavs" came "at unknown times and under unknown circumstances". There was, however, no such thing as a Slavic conquest of Greece. The Slavs came, but they did not conquer. In response, Charanis wrote of Slavic domination and great numbers of settlers coming to Greece during the entire period from "just before the beginning of Maurice's reign [582-602] to the early years of the reign of Heraclius [610-641]". He attacked the "official version of the Slavic problem in Greece" espoused by Stilpon Kyriakides: "no Greek scholar, writing in Greece, has ever acknowledged that Slavs settled in Greece during the sixth century"...".

And Florin Curta conclude as about this debate:

"...In reality, the controversy was substantially different from everything published until then on the "Slavic problem". Kenneth M. Setton and Peter Charanis "infused the study of the texts with information from numismatics and archaeology". Setton first used the archaeological evidence to support arguments derived from the interpretation of written sources. Despite his criticism of Charanis, he believed that the archaeological evidence confirmed "to some extent" the Chronicle of Monemvasia, "especially as to the Greek abandonment of Corinth". He noticed that the largest number of seventh-century coins from Corinth had been found on the Acrocorinth and that such finds were rare in the lower town, a distribution he further interpreted as indicating that the inhabitants of the citymoved "within the protection of the precipitous heights of the citadel". Charanis's interpretation of the distribution of coins on the Acrocorinth differed only in that he viewed it as an indication that the Avars had severely damaged Corinth and that, as a consequence, all economic activities indicated by coins had been transferred to the Acrocorinth...".

Source and Works that you must read:

1-Peter Charanis, On the Capture of Corinth by the Onogurs and Its Recapture by the Byzantines, essay 1952
2-Peter Charanis, ethnic changes in seventh-century Byzantium
3-George Ostrogosrky, the Byzantium State
4-Cyril Mango, Byzantium
5-Florin Curta, Byzantium in Dark Greece age Greece
6- Alexander Alexandrovich Vasiliev, A History of the Byzantine Empire.

Dr. Frank Holt regarding Macedonian History and FYROM

2010-05-15T22:16:00.002+03:00

The following text, written by Dr. Frank Holt Professor of Ancient History at the University of Houston, will be the prologue of a book published by the Macedonian Studies Center.
The book will include the letter by world known archeologists, historians and researchers from various academic institutions in the world to President Barack Obama regarding the Greekness of Macedonia. http://macedonia-evidence.org/

PROLOGUE
The documents comprising this book speak forcefully for the proposition that the history of ancient Macedonia, including the brilliant reigns of Philip and his son Alexander, belongs squarely in the cultural, economic, political, religious, and military history of Hellenism.
The cultural milieu of the Macedonian court was Greek.
The texts that Alexander studied as a youth were Greek.
The books he read while in Asia were Greek.
The heroes he emulated, the gods he worshipped, the temples he built were Greek.
The coins he minted in the millions were Greek.
The legacy he left behind from Anatolia to India was as Greek as his settlers could make it, right down to a theater, gymnasium, and inscribed copy of the Delphic maxims in a far corner of Afghanistan. To say that Alexander’s kingdom was......
in some ways out of step with the city-states to the south is hardly an argument against his Hellenic heritage; it only means that Macedonia remained more Homeric than Athens, Thebes, or Sparta. It is hard to be more Greek than that. Nor should we be troubled by Alexander’s ability to speak a Macedonian dialect or by his interest in the world beyond Greece itself. Alexander was a man of the world, certainly, but he was a man from Macedonian Greece. According to Arrian 2.14.4, Alexander said this himself in a letter to the Persian king Darius:

Alexander sent a reply to Darius by way of Thersippos, who went back with the Persian envoys. Alexander’s letter states as follows: “Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece, inflicting evils upon us without provocation…”

Here Alexander’s point seems clear—Macedonia was historically a part of Greece.

A widening academic consensus on this matter may be witnessed among the many signatories to another epistle of more recent composition, addressed to President Barack Obama. That letter, too, cites history in order to show the connection between Macedonia and the rest of Greece. This unusual appeal to an American leader arises from a decision by the United States to recognize as the ‘Republic of Macedonia’, with all of its historic implications, what had previously been called the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, or Skopje. But why should a decision of this kind stir a strong reaction, particularly among ‘ivory-tower’ academics? Is not the new name just an economy of words? Does not every nation have the sovereign right to adopt any name it chooses? Not really, for in many cases claims follow names: historic, ethnic, and even territorial.

The crux lies less in the politics of 2004, when a former administration took this action, than in the pages of a work whose title bears a date twenty years earlier. In George Orwell’s 1984, penned in 1948 by an author aware of why words and ideas matter, the motto of Big Brother and his insidious Ministry of Information highlights the dangers of historical distortion: Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past. Real power resides not in the technologies of war or totalitarianism, but rather in that ancient invention of the Greeks called history. The past matters, and more than most people in Orwell’s world—or ours—may realize. The future surely fascinates us, but it has no force. It merely waits while the past drives the present. On the train-tracks of time, the engine has always been in the back, pushing rather than pulling. Thus, the past cannot be unhooked and unheeded as so much dead weight. Nor can it be left in the hands of the wrong engineers: Whoever controls the past determines the future, and that ultimately depends upon who in the present is shaping the past. Parliaments? Pundits? Preachers? Poets? Presidents? Who controls the present must choose carefully whom to trust with our past, else a false and monstrous future may result. At the very least, Mr. Presidents and Madam Secretaries and Peoples of the World, please consider carefully the contents of this book and the credentials of those who have contributed to it.

Frank L. Holt

Protecting the brand name Macedonia - lessons from Byzantine Diplomacy

2010-04-22T22:13:00.004+03:00

by Miltiades Bolaris
macedonianissues.blogspot.com
americanchronicle.com

A 2007 article by the Greek political scientist Constantinos Holevas, originally published in Antibaro, a Greek magazine made its re-appearance in the Akritas Macedonian blog recently. http://akritas-history-of-makedonia.blogspot.com/
It is titled "The importance of the name and Byzantine Diplomacy".
Professor Holevas reminded us in this article that the Byzantines never called their state Byzantium. They called themselves Romaioi/Ρωμαίοι (Romans) and their state Romania/Ρωμανία (State of the Romans). They were in full conscience of their Greek language descent and culture, yet they did not consider their state simply a kingdom of the Greeks but an ecumenical empire, a representation of Christ's kingdom on earth, a continuation of the Roman empire of the Caesars, aspiring to govern the whole known world. Constantinos Holevas reminded us that even in the bleakest moments of the empire, when, after the fall of Constantinople to the Franks of the Fourth Crusade in 1204 a Latin king was sitting on the throne of Constantinople the Eastern Romans, the Byzantines, never relented on their title. John III Doukas Vatatzes / Ιωάννης Γ΄Δούκας Βατάτζης (1222-1254) the Greek king of the tiny Byzantine kingdom of Nicaea (modern Iznik in Asia Minor-Turkey), replying to the Caesaropapist demand of Pope Gregory 8th (1227-1241) that he recognizes the Latin king of conquered Constantinople as the a legitimate Roman Emperor, he refused. He reminded the Pope that all his predecessors called themselves Emperors of the Romans / Ρωμαίων Aυτοκράτορες and that he would not give up his title to a forger who simply happened to be sitting on some of his lands. To the Pope's claims that he is simply a king of the Greeks, and not a Roman Emperor, John III Doukas Vatatzes replied, that.....

yes, obviously culturally we are Greeks "Εν τω γένει των Ελλήνων ημών η σοφία βασιλεύει / Among us descendants of the Greeks the Greek wisdom rules" and furthermore, from our Hellenic roots sprouts out human wisdom and all the goods that are derived from it "η σοφία και το ταύτης ήνθισεν αγαθόν". Doukas Vatatzes speaks of his predecessors as "τους από γενών ελληνικών άρξαντας" having started from Hellenic-Greek roots. And he stood firm on his demand that he must be called Emperor of the Romans, as tradition and protocol required.

Greece is now under a lot of pressure. Financial speculators the world over have smelled blood in Greece's high deficits and are circling over her like vultures, betting on the collapse of the Greek economy and the default of its debt. George Papandreou, the Greek prime minister has become airborne, flying from Berlin to Paris and From Washington to Brussels in his attempt to create the favorable political and financial climate that will give his country the breathing space it needs to implement the necessary structural changes. It seems to be working. The EU partners have recognized the need to create the support net that will buffer Greece, and any other Euro zone country that will find itself in a similar condition.
Like John II Doukas Vatatzes found out the hard way, being pressured by the Latins and the Pope, George Papandreou's administration is also finding itself under heavy pressure to "close" several issues that are important to Greece's international friends, and close them in a haste.
President Obama, for example, did not fail to remind Mr. Papandreou, when he recently received him in the White House, that the State Department is anxious for Greece to hastily recognize the so called Former Yugoslav Republic of Makedonija - FYROM under the pseudonym "Northern Macedonia".
Macedonian Greeks the world over hope that even in this bleakest of financial situations the Greek government will not give in under pressure to this historical travesty. If anything else, it does not even make economic sense, and I will explain.
I type three words in Google: "tourist destination macedonia". Nine out of ten entries that stare back at me are for (you guessed it): the fake "Macedonia" of Skopje.
Then I type, again in Google: "macedonian wines". Four entries come out for wines of Greek Macedonia, five for wines from Skopje-Makedonija-FYROM and one (images of Macedonian wines) was mixed.
Incidentally, two well paid international television campaigns has been launched recently by FYROM. One is promoting their "Macedonia" to international tourism ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t0mx3EScFE&feature=related )and the other is promoting Skopjan "Macedonian" wines( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcC4gKvWTw0&feature=related ).
Macedonia, if anything else, is a PRICELESS brand name. The Skopje administrations fully recognize this simple fact. The Macedonian Greeks fully recognize this too. Does Athens recognize this? Recent experience is, to say the least, very discouraging.
If you look in American supermarket shelves you can easily find several types of American-produced "brandy", "blue cheese" or "sparkling wine", but you will NOT find American "Cognac", "Roquefort" or "Champagne". Why not? Simply because the French are serious about protecting their brands. Their livelihood and well being depends on it. A similar walk through an American supermarket will land you several types of American-produced "Greek yogurt", "Feta" cheese, and American "Ouzo", among other internationally recognized valuable Greek trademarked items. Why is that? Obviously, the Greeks have been too relaxed and careless about protecting their valuable trade names. Willingness to fight back and a good lawsuit would easily settle this issue in American courts with any companies that are so blatantly disregarding international trade marks, while the Greek government is wasting its time petitioning the American Department of Commerce, getting the run around without results year after year.
Serious countries pay grave attention to what is considered their own and do not appreciate trespassers on their rights. Byzantium, or more properly the Eastern Roman Empire, did not become the longest lasting (for over a thousand years) state institution in human world history by letting others push it around. The Byzantine Romaioi steadfastly defended their internationally accepted ecumenical name and the rights emanating from it. Papal Legates in the 9th century court of Constantinople that dared ignore the protocol and addressed the Byzantine emperor as Rex Graecorum (king of the Greeks), instead of the ecumenically proper name Imperator Romanorum (emperor of the Romans) were immediately rushed out of the palatial audience hall and were thrown in prison. France does the same today for everything, from its political and foreign policy interests in Africa to its commercial interests in the United States. Greece, on the other hand has established for itself a pitiful record of self-destructive acquiescence to the trampling of its vital interests from de facto accepting Turkish "gray areas" in the Aegean to accepting a so called "geographic" determinant for (some kind of) "Macedonia" for Skopje, and down to the destruction of the good name of some of its best known quality products by inferior international imitations, like the oxymorous bovine-milk "feta" curds from Wisconsin. Greece is being self defeatist when it is shying away from the necessary fight when its own internationally recognized interests are at stake.
If internationally recognized quality Feta, Greek Yogurt, Ouzo and Greek Olive Oil or Wine from Greece are valuable trade marks that can help the Greek Economy rise itself out of its current low point, what then should be the value assessed on the PRICELESS brand name "Macedonia" which Greek governments are foolishly if not criminally ready to give away to its provocatively more aggressive neighbors?
If Athens, forgetting the timeless lessons of John II Doukas Vatatzis' reply to Pope Gregory 8th, relents under "friendly" external pressure and accepts to share the name "Macedonia" by recognizing Skopje as "North Macedonia" it will be committing a world class IRREVERSIBLE blunder against its own historically understood ( http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html ) self-interests.
Skopje will eventually drop the "north" from its name, becoming THE internationally identifiable MACEDONIA that the whole world recognizes, while Greek Macedonia, the historic Macedonia of Aristotle and Alexander the Great, twice the size of FYROM, with times and a half FYROM's population will end up an international non-entity, a geographic void, a lame and neutered "South Macedonia". Thessaloniki will end up being just another city of Greece, while Skopje will show off its colors as THE "capital of Macedonia", yes the North one, which will then propagate for its "re-unification" with the "enslaved" Southern "other"; a North Macedonia" that is inhabited by ethnic "Macedonians" who speak "Macedonian" and all of this with Athens' signature ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwUqlhvqe3E&feature=related ).
John Doukas Vatatzes, where are you?
Greece needs to look forward to a new beginning. Business as usual, the careless, Balkan way, has led her to the point of near destruction. George Papandreou himself has proclaimed just that, by naming this crisis an opportunity that must not be missed. The opportunity, in other words has arrived for a more energetic rethinking of Greece's older, inertia-driven, phobic and lame policies, the Macedonian naming issue being one.
Being slapped around by the kinds of Gruevski and Milososki into submission through "Macedonia-sharing" schemes (that -if nothing else- will spell disastrous economic consequences for Greek Macedonia with its vibrant tourist and cultural sector and world famous Boutari, Lazarides, Tsantalis and Pavlidis wines among others, even if all other historical and geopolitical considerations were to be left for the briefest second aside), should not be the internationally humiliating priority for any self-respecting Greek Foreign Minister.

Alexander I at Olympia (Olympic Games)

2010-04-09T10:32:00.000+03:00

Old king Amyntas was a conservative obliged to carry on his traditional local policy and consumed with fear of a new Persian onslaught. While he was alive, his heir Alexander spent his youth more or less in the background. But from the time when he ascended the throne on his father's death he was not slow in showing his deep felt convictions and opening up Greek horizons to Macedonia for the first time by means of direct contact with the Hellenes. The erstwhile youth who had slain the Persian nobles was still apparently alive in him and his heart had not ceased responding to the lure of legends and poetic traditions from his Hellenic schooling as a boy. Despite the fact that his sister lived at the Persian court as wife of a powerful Persian grandee, he felt himself a Greek to the core and was burning with desire to bring Macedonia actively into the orbit of Hellenic life and even more so, to exhibit his pan-Hellenic schoiling. The ambition to visit Olympia and take part in the games is also explained by his family traditions. As a Heracleid he would go on a pilgrimage to the all-Greek sanctuary which, according to the belief of all Greece, Heracles himself had founded. By gaining victories there and receiving a branch of the sacred olive his illustrious ancestor had planted, he would be acclaimed by all the Hellenes and show himself a worthy scion of the legendary hero.

So very shortly after his accession he determined to do what no Macedonian king before him and very few after him until Philip's day had contemplated doing. He made up his mind to visit Greece, to make personal acquaintance with the political and social life of the Greek cities, to sacrifice at the pan-Hellenic shrines and take part in the pan-Hellenic games. History tells us nothing of Alexander I's journey to Greece apart from his.......

sojourn at Olympia and participation in the games. But it is hard to suppose that Alexander, imbued as he was with a pan-Hellenic spirit and inflamed with ambition to know about Greek life and appear as a Greek himself, would undertake such a long and laborious journey from Aegae, his capital, through Thessaly, central Greece, Attica and so to Olympia, without seeing other cities and holy Greek places, particularly Athens and Delphi, even if he went part of the way by sea. As we are going to explain, there are many indications that he did at any rate visit Athens.

When telling of Alexander's appearance at Olympia and the famous incident at which he reveals his Greek descent, of which we shall have more to say later, Herodotus does not mention which Olympiad it was. For this reason there have been differences over dating this Olympiad. Some maintain it was one of the two between the two Persian Wars in Greece, either the 73rd (488 B.C.) or the 74th (484 B.C.); while others claim that it was the 76th, just after the Wars. In fact the 75th (480 B.C.) coincides with Xerxes' great invasion and therefore is ruled out, as Alex¬ander I accompanied the Persian Army then.

We believe that none of these Olympiads was the one in which Alexander started on his travels into Greece and took part in the Olympic games. As we explain below, in the year 492 (72nd Olympiad) there was the great Persian assault on Thrace and Macedonia which resulted in the actual subjection of Macedonia. Consequently, Alexander's journey that year is out of the question as it would imply a long absence and peaceful conditions at home. The 73rd (488 B.C.) and 74th (485 B.C.) Olympiads are equally ruled out in view of the fact that after the expedition of Datis and Artaphernes in 490 B.C. which failed so signally at Marathon, (it was to be a punishment for the help Athens had given to the Ionian cities' revolt and the burning of Sardis), relations between Greeks and Persians had deteriorated and the impending storm of Xerxes' invasion was already visible on the horizon. It would not have been possible for the king of Macedonia to follow anything but a pro-Persian policy in his role of satrap in the vast empire, and he would never have risked a visit to Greece with philhellenic demonstrations, which would have been so very dangerous for him. But even apart from this it is hard to imagine that Alexander I, who throughout his reign showed himself a ruler of great intelligence and political acumen, would contemplate undertaking the long journey to Greece while fearful storms had already come upon his country and new threats of catastrophe were hanging over it.

The 75th Olympiad which was held in 480 B.C. is also out of the question, as Alexander I was following Xerxes in his campaign against Greece. That brings us to the 76th in 476 B.C.; this again is impossible in our view, for a variety of reasons. First of all, in the year 512,18 when Herodotus tells us Alexander slew the Persian nobles, he was between 15 and 18 years old; in 476 he must have been 51 to 54. Such an age does not correspond with Alexander's youthful impulse to enter the ring with young athletes, still less does it tally with the information that he won a race at the Olympic Games; that was an event demanding youthful endurance, hence entirely out of keeping with a person of mature age. Aside from this, as we explain later on Herodotus' information,19 some of the Greeks taking part in the games were amazed at seeing the king of Macedonia contending for victory on the track. They did not know who that person was at all and doubted whether he had the right to take part in those pan-Hellenic games. Such an event seems quite incomprehensible if it occurred in 476 B.C., that is after the Persian Wars, during which Alexander had rendered great services to the Greeks as a Greek, had visited Athens and been received with great honour, being proclaimed a proxenus and public benefactor and generally regarded as a most popular figure throughout Greece. Such an objection would have been deemed most unbecoming and unseemly if meted out in an all-Greek sanctuary to Alexander, already known as "the Phil-hellene",20 and would have aroused the indignation of the public, especially of the Athenians and Spartans present.

It remains for us to go back to the 71st Olympiad in 496 B.C. to date Alexander's first journey to Greece and his participation in the games at Olympia. In our view this year fits in perfectly with a logical examination of the matter. Alexander I had been but a short while on the throne and felt the need, mingled with ambition, to know Greece and be known by the Greeks, to visit the country of his family traditions and Argead legends, to make a pilgrimage to the renowned pan-Hellenic sanctuaries where the gods of his ancestors and Heracles, believed to be his ancestor, were worshipped and lastly to take part in the Olympic games, whose victors were praised in hymns by the greatest poets of Greece. That time was the most favorable because he did not yet feel any tyrannical pressure from the Persians, Macedonia was quiet and he was at liberty to move about and show his affection for the Greeks. At the time of the 71st Olympiad he was fairly young, not more that thirty five. He had clearly been accustomed to Macedonian military drill and cultivated his physical powers, keeping his youthful vigour which fitted him to take part in pan-Hellenic games.

We know of Alexander's journey to Olympia and his participation in the games chiefly from Herodotus, but we can use certain auxiliary facts from later sources. Herodotus narrates this event as something of a digression, having already recounted at length the drama of the boy Alexander slaughtering the Persian nobles.21 The avowed object of his digression is triumphantly to vindicate the Hellenism of the king of Macedonia and as a sort of preliminary justification for his evincing pro-Greek sentiment during the Persian Wars, to be stressed on many subsequent occasions. Here is what Herodotus writes: "That the descendants of Perdiccas are Greeks, as they themselves say, I myself happen to know and will prove it further on in my history. Also the Hellanodicae, who are in charge of contests at Olympia, established that it was so, for when Alexander chose to compete and entered the lists for that purpose, the Greeks who were to run against him were barring him from the race, saying that the contest should be for Greeks and not for barbarians. But as soon as Alexander proved himself to be Argive, he was judged to be a Greek, so he entered the furlong race and ran a dead heat for for the first place." 22

According to this account of Herodotus, Alexander went to Olympia and onto the track where he was going to enter the race. Then certain Greeks competing in this race for the championship wanted to exclude him, questioning his right to enter. As has already been pointed out, the qualification for entry in the pan-Hellenic games was Greek nationality, no foreign participants being permitted. Thus the Macedonian king's right to be called a Greek was challenged. During the Olympic games, objections were settled by the Hellanodicae, who were appointed to see that the contests were properly run with only Greeks competing, and to solve whatever differences arose.23 There is no doubt that by the phrase "proving himself to be an Argead" Herodotus implied the traditional descent of the Macedonian royal house from the Heracleid Temenids of Argos in the Peloponnese, to which he alludes elsewhere,24 and presents Alexander proclaiming this publicly as an indication of his Hellenic origin and consequent right to take part in the Olympic Games.

Obviously anyone suddenly arriving on the track could not sim¬ply enter the contests at his own pleasure. He had to declare his entry, have it accepted and checked by the judges, take the oath, a special test for selection and perform certain religious and other preliminary rites. Especially in the case of the first three track events in the Olympics, (the furlong, double course and long course) the competitors had to be divided into "classes" of four to six athletes, who would run the preliminary heats; only the winners of these qualified for the finals. Perhaps on account of his being a prominent personality such as had possibly never been seen at Olympia before, certain parts of the customary routine, e.g. entering the Stadium preceded by the Judges, were waved in his case. But one imagines it would not have been possible for him to be exempted from the oath which competitors had to swear in the Council Chamber, showing before the statue of Zeus Horkios that they possessed all the rights of a Greek citizen, that they had undergone the requisite trials and that they would comply with all the conditions imposed by Olympia for the games. However well we may note that many of these conditions, known to us from Olympiads after the Persian Wars, had not yet been formulated, there always existed the oath and certain other requirements to be fulfilled before the competitor was allowed to enter, long ahead of his reaching the track on the day of the games.

Alexander was not just an ordinary Greek coming to look on or take part in the games, but a great personage. He was certainly accompanied by a large escort which drew the widest interest and caused a great commotion. Besides, the imposing appearance of the young king, surrounded by the stalwart and strangely armed members of his escort must have aroused general admiration and become the topic of the day for the Greeks who had come to Olympia from the ends of the Hellenic world. Under such circumstances he must have been already well-known to the judges, who would certainly make no objection to his entering the contests. They thus recognized his Greek nationality, without which, as has already been pointed out, it was impossible for him to comply with the preliminary conditions. But if by any chance doubts arose among them, Alexander had to explain his origins before them and must have been already recognized as a Greek.

From the text of Herodotus it appears that the objections arose when Alexander, already accepted as an entrant, entered the lists to be placed in his group for the race. Then, probably at the moment when the heralds (according to the rules of the games), were announcing the name and homeland of each competitor, one or more of the athletes, asked for him to be excluded, questioning his right of entry, as that belonged exclusively to Greeks.

The Greeks congregating at Olympia to take part in the games or watch them came not only from Greece proper but from the Euxine colonies, the cities of Asia Minor, the African coast, Greater Greece, the farther settlements in the Western Mediterranean, in fact from every place where Hellenes were found. The geographical and historical knowledge of many among them was strictly limited; it was natural for some not to know even where Macedonia was at a time when it was cut off beyond Olympus, surrounded by barbarian peoples and in no sort of contact with the southern Greeks. This state of affairs was not in the least odd at the beginning of 5th century, especially before the Persian Wars until which no Macedonian had shown his face at Olympia and there had been no instances of Macedonians at the pan-Hellenic sanctuaries. Given this, it is not in any way surprising that there were persons in this pan-Hellenic company who were ignorant of Macedonia and did not count its king among those of the Greeks entitled to take part in the games. It must not be forgotten that according to Herodotus, those who objected to Alexander's entry were his fellow athletes on the track. Strong feelings were aroused during the games where victory made of the winner a pan-Hellenic figure, sung by the great poets, winning great honours in his birthplace, often including a statue. Consequently the other competitors who were racing with him had every interest in seeking motives to exclude anyone who might place their victory in jeopardy. Alexander could have awaited the answer without emotion, knowing what the judges would reply to the objectors, with whom he must have already discussed the matter. Instead of this, he preferred to announce publicly to all the Greeks assembled at Olympia the tradition of his Temenid ancestors, who had emigrated from Argos in the Peloponnese to Macedonia, building Aegae and creating the kingdom of Macedonia. Thus at this triumphal moment, Alexander did not welcome the opportunity of taking part in the games so much as that of exploiting the chance to proclaim before all Greece his Heracleid Argive ancestry by telling the legend with his own lips.

During the games at Olympia the telling of pan-Hellenic legends recounting some national event, reading of a historical or literary work, recital of poetry, and so forth, were nothing uncommon. On the contrary, these constituted both a form of recreation and the re-baptism of the Greeks who had come together from the ends of the earth. During the 5th century B.C. distinguished men of letters in Greece used to appear at Olympia and gain applause by reciting their works. Tradition has it that Herodotus gave readings from his history, recording Greek triumphs against the barbarians and causing a religious emotion in his audience, while tears rolled down the cheeks of the boy Thucydides, who was present.25 There Gorgias and Lysias and later the sophist Hippias and many others spoke amid the applause of the jubilant Greeks; there too Themistocles was cheered for achieving the triumphant liberation of Greece from the barbarians and Plato honoured as a mighty pan-Hellenic intellect.26 There is no possible doubt that these conditions obtained in the Olympiad shortly before the Persian Wars. It must also be true that as at that time there cannot have been so many distinguished visitors appearing before the public and being applauded by them as there were after the Persian Wars, the King of Macedonia's arrival as an athlete in the sanctuary of Altis, addressing the assembled Greeks on the subject of his Heracleid ancestor, must have seemed a unique occasion and Alexander would have been roundly applauded. The episode would have been recounted quickly when they went home all over Greece and perhaps laid the foundations of the immense popularity which Alexander was later to enjoy throughout the whole of Greece. Certainly it was a marvellous opportunity for the Heracleid king of a country hitherto cut off behind its mountains and so far unknown to most of the Greeks to speak within this pan-Hellenic shrine of Zeus and Heracles announcing his glorious Greek ancestry and proclaiming himself a Heracleid Greek, sprung from Zeus and Heracles himself. It would have shown unpardonable negligence and lack of political sense if he had confined himself to recognizing his right to participate in the games and had not hastened to exploit the chance of mentioning his splendid ancestors to the pan-Hellenic throng. We may even wonder whether he himself did not engineer the episode in order to create the opportunity of speaking at Olympia, for which he had prepared himself.
Herodotus says that Alexander ran the furlong race in the stadium. This was the first contest and the Games at Olympia always began with it as we can discover from all ancient sources.27 Besides, it was the simplest of the races over a distance limited to between the extreme west and the extreme east of the stadium. After it came the double and long courses, races over two and more circuits. It is reasonable to suppose that Alexander took part in these three first races at least. Herodotus clearly states "competing in the furlong" and does not relate his taking part in any other contests. On the other hand, his winning the race was also relative, as he "tied" for the first place ("ran a dead heat for the first place"). If he had happened to run in the other two races, he cannot have won because otherwise it would have bien mentioned. But the probabilities are that his taking part in the Olympic games, in a purely honorary capacity due to his position, was limited by special dispensation of the Judges to the first race in the Olympiad, the furlong, which provided him with the proud satisfaction, greatly sought after throughout the Greek world, of being a winner at Olympia. Undoubtedly, his name would not have been carved on the columns of Olympic victors, because to attain this it was not enough to win a dead heat, but to win a series of victories in a number of events. In this sense, Alexander was not "an Olympic victor" but winner of an Olympic event. But even as a winner of that sort he was sure to have gained applause from the pan-Hellenic crowd watching the games and perhaps he was also privileged in an honorary capacity to have that inexpressible pleasure of receiving from the hands of the judges the "cotinos," or branch of the sacred olive, planted according to tradition by his ancestor Heracles.

The Macedonians, owing to their mountainous territory, their continuous wars and general country life, with exercise and long journeys, were naturally accustomed to running. Alexander, given special training at the Macedonian court in running and other athletics as he must have been since they were regarded as especially befitting a good soldier, surely had all the qualifications necessary for winning if he had to contest the races as an ordinary entrant. But the victory hewon at Olympia must also be looked on as "diplomatic." It would not have been seemly for the King of Macedon to come in behind other ordinary entrants. However, he succeeded in winning without depriving others of also doing so. He was announced the winner along with the other men who would also have been entitled to all the honours due to a champion.

This we only know from Herodotus' history, but certain authors very much later, known to have used other sources than Herodotus, confine themselves to mentioning that Alexander took part in the Olympic games and won, without saying anything about the incident of his right of entry being doubted and his public proclamation of his Argive ancestry.28

This famous tale of Olympia has given rise to a great deal of speculation among modern historians in relation to the origin of the Macedonians. Those who doubt the Hellenism of the ancient Macedonians, while they discard Herodotus' later accounts of Alexander I's showing pro-Greek sentiments during the Persian Wars and especially his help to the Hellenic cause at Tempe and Plataea as imaginary, readily accept the tale of his entry in the Olympic games and of the objections to his doing so, to support the assertion that the ancient Macedonians were not Greek by origin, or at any rate were not considered so by the ancient Greeks.
We will now confine ourselves to the concrete facts presented by Herodotus. He does not say that the Greeks gathered at Olympia or that the chief judges appointed by them questioned Alexander's right to enter the games, looking on him as a barbarian and not a Greek. Only that certain athletes taking part in the furlong race and interested in debarring any competitor likely to contest the victory seriously with them made these complaints. It was only natural, as we have already said, that among athletes and celebrants of every social class and every educational level of Greeks from the farthest confines of the known world, there should have been some who did not know anything about Macedonians cut off beyond Olympus and Pindus, and not yet in any political or other contact with the rest of Hellas. The fact that the chief judges had already accepted Alexander's entry into the lists, since he had already fulfilled the necessary conditions, especially the oath, means that they who followed and knew what was going on in Greece better than anyone raised no objection, knowing in advance that Alexander was Greek, Alexander's preferring to speak, explaining his Argead tradition, instead of relying on their judgement shows not his need of supporting his Hellenic identity but his pride in proclaiming his descent from Zeus and Heracles before the assembled company.

The assertion is then made that Alexander only showed that he was Greek himself and not the Macedonians and that only his own Hellenic identity was recognised. It was Alexander alone who went into the lists to take part in the games and it was only his right to enter that was questioned. Consequently at the moment he alone was concerned and it was not an ethnological discussion concerning the Macedonians. Alexander did not compete at Olympia on a national Macedonian issue, for which besides there was not cause at that time. He confined himself, or rather he seized the opportunity of proclaiming his own Hellenism as well as his title to Hellenic nobility through the Heracleid kings of Macedonia, who must have commanded special honour and admiration at that Panhelle-nic sanctuary of the worship of Zeus and Heracles. We can rather draw the conclusions from this passage of Herodotus as regards the Macedonians in general, based on the overall rules which apply to the lives of peoples. Since the royal house of Macedonia had been recognised as Greek and sprung from Argos in the Peloponnese, the Macedonians had been indirectly recognized as Greeks also. For how could the Greeks assembled at Olympia imagine that a Greek dynasty, which had already ruled a barbarian people for three and a half centuries far from the rest of the Greek world, entirely cut off among their barbarous subjects and never till that moment in any contact with the remaining Greeks, could have preserved its Greek language, traditions and supremely Greek consciousness? It seems strange to any logical view of the matter, foreign to all historical judgement and anyhow would have been quite beyond the understanding of the ancient Greeks.

It may be mentioned that after the Persian Wars, many Macedoni¬ans took part in the Olympic games and are recorded as winning events without any question arising over their eligibility to compete, nor was there ever the slightest doubt in later years of their Greek nationality, which alone entitled them to enter the lists. Thus according to the Latin author Solinus, Alexander's grandson Archelaus competed in the Olympic games and won the four horse chariot race.29 Diodorus too mentions the Macedonian Cleiton, winning the furlong race in the 113rd Olympiad.30

From Philip's time, when the Macedonians came into direct contact with the Greeks from the city democracies and entered Greek territory in large numbers they always went to the sanctuaries as Greeks and took part in the Panhellenic games under that identity. No complaint was ever raised even by the anti-Macedonian orators at Athens, who would have had splendid material for influencing public opinion over the defiling of Hellenic sanctuaries and polluting Greek traditions by barbarians (if this had been a question not of the Argead sovereigns but of common Macedonians), had they believed that the Macedonians were not Greeks.

Alexander's presence at the Olympiad and his victory in the Games must have been the great event of the year, discussed everywhere by the participants on their return home. Alexander thus became known throughout Hellas as coming from a remote country hitherto unknown to most Greeks, as an Olympic victor and also as descendant of the Temenids of Argos. He thus grew very popular and his pro-Greek conduct during the Persian Wars, noised abroad from Athens and Sparta, not only increased his popularity but kept the impression of his Olympic victory warm in the memory of the Greeks.

The recollection of Alexander's contest at Olympia kept alive as a famous Panhellenic occurence doubtless moved Pindar to dedicate marvellous verses to him. The fragments preserved by later writers give some hint of the beauty in that mutilated text.31

One of the ancient writers tells us that Pindar went to stay in Macedonia and was entertained by Alexander.32 Nobody knows whether he wrote his encomium at that time but it can be taken as certain that he wrote it after the Persian Wars and at the time when the king had become a popular figure all over Greece. This is why it is referred to as an "encomium" and not an "ode". All the same, we cannot infer from it that Alexander simply took part in the Olympic Games without being declared a victor, or indeed that this encomium has no reference to his having participated in them. The truth of the matter is that Herodotus confines himself to saying that Alexander tied for the first place in the furlong race without mentioning whether he was proclaimed a winner. But as we have already said, Herodotus recounts the incident not as reporting what happened at Olympia, but as revealing Alexander as a Greek. It would appear that the last three surviring lines leave no room for doubt that the encomium, if indeed it was not in fact an ode, honours the memory of Alexander's victory at Olympia. Otherwise, it being one of Pindar's works, it is impossible to understand what was meant by a feat (καλοϋ έργου) which must be sung in "most beautiful songs" «καλλίσταις άοιδαΐς» to ensure the immortality of his fame.

Actually this encomium of Pindar's did more than anything to give Panhellenic fame to Alexander's entry in the Olympic Games and it seems to have been very well known throughout Greece in later times. In particular it was a feather in the caps of Alexander's descendants of the Macedonian throne and this sacred family legacy must have excited the lively imagination and national pride of Alexander the Great from an early age. Thus later on we find that he had an unbounded admiration for Pindar, not only as a great Greek poet, but because he had honoured his ancestor Alexander I with this ode. Later sources relate that, when ordering Thebes to be razed to the ground, Alexander the Great spared only Pindar's house because the great lyric poet had immortalized his forebear Alexander I.33 It is true that this story is nowhere related by later historians, such as Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus, etc., writing about Alexander the Great. But even if the anecdote is derived from some other vanished source it shows that the tradition of Alexander's feat at Olympia was kept green for centuries by Pindar, that immortal bard of Olympic victories.

Apostolos Daskalakis,

The Hellenism of the Macedonians

Pages 157-163

IMXA, 1963

For fair use only

Afrocentrism and the distortion of Greek history

2010-03-12T13:16:00.001+02:00

Ioannis Kotoulas
Historian
(Translation into English by Athan).

On February 1993 in the College Wellesley of Massachusetts a lecture was given regarding the ancient Egyptian civilization. The speaker, Yosef A. A. Ben Jochannan was presented by the event organizers as a “distinguished Egyptologist”. During his lecture Jochannan more or less supported that the ancient Greeks practically stole their civilization from Egypt, that philosopher Aristotle went to Alexandria along with Alexander the Great to visit the library which Aristotle eventually sacked in order to write his works.

During questions, a professor of classical studies named Mary Lefkowitz asked the lecturer why he would claim something like that when Alexandria acquired its great library well after the death of Aristotle, and moreover, the Greek philosopher never visited Egypt. Jochannan refused to answer, accusing Lefkowitz for empathy and negative stance towards the opinions of the black population. After the lecture many students accused Lefkowitz for racism and a one way comprehension of history. Indeed, what is happening in the American universities?

Afrocentrism is an ideological movement with historical and political extensions, which has spread through many universities across the Atlantic especially during the 90s. It is a branch of a new wave of political correctness that swept the American society during the last decade.

The supposed basic core of the beliefs of afrocentrism is shaped as thus: Mother of civilization – especially of Western civilization – is .....
the continent of Africa and the carriers of civilization are the African nations. Many high level societies were formed in Africa long before the white nations appeared in the foreground of history. Ancient Egypt was but a part of the black African civilization and also the Egyptians themselves were blacks (Negros) from an anthropological point of view.

The African civilization of Egypt influenced the Greek world and the birth of classical civilization significantly, since the ancient Greeks borrowed, or more appropriately “stole” their religion, science and philosophy, the artistic and mental achievements, from the ancient Egyptians, Canaanites and the Phoenicians. Great figures of the ancient world, such as Socrates, Cleopatra or Jesus Christ were blacks. But also in the more recent years the world famous musician Ludwig van Beethoven and empress Josephine of Austria. By and large, the whole of white western civilization or at least its noblest expressions are owed to the black people of Africa. Regardless of how unreal all of these sound, many members of the academic community and of other educational degrees in the United States have adopted them fully and have included them in their teaching program.

Apart from the basic core of teachings, Afrocenrtrism reaches to even more extreme and unhistorical views. Jochannan claims that Plato drew out his philosophical opinions from the Egyptian priesthood which had developed a complete system of ideas. In reality Plato never visited Egypt and the relative literature regarding the Greek - Egyptian philosophy under Hermes Trismegistus was developed during the first centuries after Christianity, 500 years after the death of Plato. Jochannan also mentions, as it was initially stated, that Aristotle went to Egypt where he studied the various Egyptian documents in the library of Alexandria. These manuscripts he translated in Greek and then re-published them as his own. One small detail the afrocentrist writer ignores is that the library of Alexandria started to be built during 300-290 BC from Ptolemy of Lagos, years after the death of Aristotle (322). The Stagirite absolutely never visited Egypt.

Cheikh Anta Diop in the book “Civilization or barbarism: An authentic anthropology” supports that even the inventor Archimedes stole (words referring to stealing are often used by afrocentrists) his mathematical knowledge from the Egyptians. Other afrocentrist writers assure us that that the discovery of America was due to the Africans, which had arrived on the continent well before Colombus, declaring the start of the Mesoamerican civilizations. Moreover, melanin, the substance with which the color of the skin is determined, makes black people superior both spiritually and physically to the whites. Thus, afrocentrism attracts immiscibly racist assumptions for which the other side is often blamed.

Writer Francis Welsing supports the manichaeistic cultural scheme that separates mankind into two wide categories: The Sun People and the Ice People. The first are naturally all blacks which have the calmer and civilized character, they also have a much evolved sense of community. The Ice People, the white race, are still into the mentality of the cave people. They tend to be expansive, separate the world, installing patriarchal systems and import the feeling of individualism and of the small group of common interests. The exaggerations of afrocentrism are indeed various and many, but it would be more appropriate to investigate the conditions that led to the birth of such views.

Origins and the historical descent of afrocentrism.

Afrocentrism appeared in a more specific and concentrated form during the 90’s in the United States. During this period, the American society –already a mixture of white Anglo-Saxons, blacks, Hispanics and various other nations and religions- was orientated towards the idea of multiculturalism. Under the guise of democratic equalization of all groups of the populations and minorities, the perspective of relativity and subjectivity of historical events arose. No more was there a single truth, just subjective statements; there was no solid history, just a sum of narrations. Every group of the population could (and should) construct its own historical background. In this way the self-awareness would be obtained and its distinguished character would be preserved.

For the favor of the constantly resurgent political correctness the historical correctness was neglected intentionally. Anything that did not decrease the particular egoism of these groups or did not go against their self-willed historical and political opinions could be characterized as real. The groups of blacks, feminists and homosexuals claimed the revision of history so that the establishment of their dogmatic and pre-formed opinions could be eased.

Classical education of ancient and Greek knowledge yielded considerably as they were replaced in many universities and other institutions by studies of minority group, feminist, gender and gay studies. Especially as far as afrocentrism is concerned, let it be noted that in many schools and universities the teaching of ancient Greek history and language was replaced by myths and traditions of the indigenous African tribes. It was within such a social and political framework of obsession that the defense of the Greek character of Macedonia using historically proven facts was mistaken for an egoistic attempt of blocking the Skopjan point of view.

Well before the 90’s there were many pseudo-literature studies that existed in the gutter of scientific research in which the aspects of the Afrocentrists were stated. However during that period the studies of this kind were enlisted in the same category with books that supported that earth was flat. If one wishes to find the roots of afrocentrism, then he should go back to the 19th century. After the American civil war (1861-1865) the movement against the slavery of blacks was enacted, and it virtually aimed towards the smiting of the political and economical areas of the South. It was during that period that the first assumptions for the African origins of the Egyptian civilization where stated. Writer Frederick Douglas (1817-1895) supported that the ancient Egyptians were normal blacks: “another unfortunate turn coincidence is that the ancient Egyptians were not whites, but undoubtedly they were as black as many of our co-patriots that are now considered genuine Negros.”

Similar were the beliefs of Edwart Wilmot Blyden (1832-1912), who had taken classical studies but held firmly to the African point of view. After he went to Egypt in 1866, he ended up to the conclusion that the pyramids could only be the work of black Africans. “This, I thought, was the work of my African forefathers. I thought I heard the sound of these great Africans, as if I felt the vehemence of their restless spirits who had sent civilization to the Greeks. If only my voice could reach every African on earth, I would say to him with great sincerity. Reclaim your glory!”

The belief that the Egyptian civilization was black continued with the amateur historian W.E.B. du Bois (1868-1963), but also with members of the American freemasons with African origin. In this way a utopian apprehension for ancient Egypt was preserved, where the black population achieved greatness in science, literature and philosophy. The same beliefs are distinguished in the work of Marcus Mosya Garvey (1887-1940), black activist and head of para-political organizations of the black community of America. Garvey wanted to use arguments of historical nature for purposes of pure political character.

By believing that the black race is obviously greater than the white, he considered that the white Greeks and Romans stole their civilization from Egypt. In his essay “Who and What is a Negro? -1923)” he writes “Every unprejudiced student of history knows that the Negro ruled the world when whites where merely savages living in caves; that in ancient years thousands of Negro teachers taught in the universities of Alexandria which was then the center of knowledge; that ancient Egypt gave civilization to the world, while Greece and Rome stole its arts and language and took all its glory to themselves.”

These first afrocentrist writers prompted repeatedly their readers to reject without question all white historians, in a very clear demonstration of racial intolerance. Addressing his readers, Garvey mentions that “The current educational system hides the truth for Negros. Read, for example, that the Egyptians where a great race, also the Carthaginians, the Libyans and others, but they will never tell you they were Negros or black. You should therefore go further than the simple recordings of those events and discover the truth that honors your race”

The misappropriation of important ancient civilizations, like the Egyptian or Carthaginian, concerns a political reading of history and an ideological abuse of scientific data. And like then, the various shown arguments are in essence of political advisability nowadays. In the 19th century and until the full emancipation of the black population of America, the cultural creativity of the black citizens needed to be demonstrated. Today, within the framework of an arbitrary definition of the multicultural, their catalytic contribution in the birth of western civilization needs to be brought forth. According to a detailed study of afrocentrism “chauvinist historians (of Africa) consider the urgency of destroying the aspects that the Western historiography created. The Egyptian history can be called African in a racial sense, if one assumes that the blood of Negros run freely within the vains of ancient Egyptian” (John Markakis, Pan-Africanism: The Idea and the Movement, Ph.D.Dissertation, Columbia University, 1965).

After the African writers that evolved their afrocentrism as a reaction to the system of colonialism, the link with the recent re-appearance of the ideology is the book Stolen Legacy -1954 of George James. James was a professor of ancient Greek in middle education. In a quite dangerous statement he said that “the term Greek philosophy is in fact wrong because there is no such philosophy. The Greeks did not have a natural ability necessary for the development of philosophy. The Greek philosophy was not invented by Greeks but by the Blacks of Northern Africa, the Egyptians”. James counters the lack of any evidence what so ever using the argument that there is a white European conspiracy from the antiquity until today, in order to hide the contribution of the black race to civilization.

These points re-appeared renewed in the end of the 80’s causing much discussion and raising the reaction of many known scientists for the first time. This happened with a quite ambiguous book, the Black Athena.

The Black Athena and the forgery of history.

The title itself is provoking: Black Athena : The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization – the first tome was published in 1987, the second one in 1991. Athena, a symbol of the Greek world, of wisdom and of civilization was according to this book, black. The author of this book is Martin Bernal (born 1937), British from Hebrew descent. In reality Bernal is a sinologist, a researcher of the civilization of China and its neighboring people. As he mentions in the prologue of the first tome (The Fabrication of ancient Greece 1785-1985), his only activity with the subject of the origins of the ancient Greek civilization was a result of a personal crisis , that led him to the approach of his Hebrew roots and identity. During this research he examined the contacts between Greek and Semitic people and concluded to certain ideas that the historical, archaeological and linguist science has never acknowledged.

Bernal considers that the 25% of Greek language is of Semitic origin, 25% is of Egyptian origin, it then allows a percentage of 40-50% to be Indo-European. His basic belief is that the ancient Greek civilization is formed firstly from the civilization of Egypt, and secondarily from Canaanites and Phoenicians.

Bernal distinguishes two general categories of interpreting the origin of the Greek civilization. It is about the Ancient Model and the Aryan model (terminology by Bernal). The Aryan model is younger, it was founded in the 19th century mostly by German researchers and it mostly exists until today. It is the theory of the Indo-European origin of the Greek tribes, which came to Greece in the Bronze Age or sooner (various interesting alterations exist about the theory regarding the initial common cradle of the Indo-Europeans).

The Ancient Model, which according to Bernal the ancient Greeks themselves agreed to, wants the ancestors of the Greeks living as passive elements in simple and primitive societies. The evolution of civilization is attributed to Egyptians and Semites foreigners that dominated the Aegean space causing the cultural explosion of the Greek world. According to this way of thinking, the myths for the arrival of Kadmos are interpreted as an Egyptian – Semitic colonization of Boeotia following the founding of Thebes from eastern elements, while the tradition of Danaus that came to Argos from Egypt concerns the import of Egyptian civilization in the Peloponnese.

Bernal considers that an invasion of Semites Hyksos in the area of Egypt during 1700-1600 BC. The Hyksos, despite the fact that they were of Semitic origin, spread the Egyptian civilization in Greece. Bernal surpasses this paradox by using historical analogy to establish his case. During the spreading and territorial expanding of a nomadic population, that population transfers the civilization of countries it conquered. In the 4th and 5th century BC the arrival of the Huns in Western Europe resulted in the spreading of gothic cultural elements, not the Mongol ones. Also the invasion of the Normans in 1066 in England transferred the French culture to England, rather than the Viking culture which was the initial origin of the Normans. Something similar happened with the Hyksos, who transferred the Egyptian cultural practices. Here Bernal seems to be forgetting that the Egyptians hated the Hyksos as intruders and oppressors. Also that the Hyksos were Semites with a different civilization and that between the two groups there was fierce confrontation that led to the final banishment of the Hyksos from Egypt.

The special characteristics of the Greek civilization thus come from the mass influence resulting from the intruding African-Semitic groups. This fact was saved in the traditions of Greeks speaking of heroes from the East and Egypt, in the narration of Plato for Timaeus, references to the ancient Egyptian wisdom, as well as the names of the gods that are mostly of Egyptian origin.

But how is it that this supposed historical reality, that the ancient Greeks themselves acknowledged, was ignored? Was there a lack of scientific research and ignorance or deliberate suppression and lack of evidence? Bernal believes the second. Here enters the Aryan Model for the origin of the ancient Greek civilization. The forming of the Aryan model in the 19th century rejected the Semitic and Egyptian contribution in the forming of the Greek world for racial and anti-semitic reasons. The German philhellene scholars that established the Indo-European theory with their studies rejected all eastern involvement, because according to Bernal, they were moved by racist and Euro-centered motives. Evolving this opinion further, Bernal concludes that “Philhellenism always had Aryan and racist connections”. (Black Athena vol. I,291). He reaches to the point of accusing European scholars of the 19th century for racial prejudice against the Turks, as far as the Greek revolution was concerned, since they defended the Greeks –an ideal European group according to Bernal- against the Asian Turks. It was not by chance that the Black Athena was deified in Turkey from the local historians and a friendly review is hosted in the official web page of the Turkish Foreign Office. (www.mfa.gov.tr/grupa/percept, article by Orhan Kologlou)

The conscious devaluation and depreciation of the eastern civilization has brought according to Bernal a twisting of historical elements. The purpose of this (so far) two-tome book aims, as the writer himself suggests, “to decrease the European cultural arrogance (Time magazine 23/7/1991). It is a working with clear ideological origins and conscious political purposes.

The first dynamic response to the historical theories of Afrocentrism came from Mary Lefkowitz, a Professor of Classical Studies in the Wellesley College of Massachusetts. With a series of publications, articles, reviews and replies to the American and European press as well as the Internet, Lefkowitz disproved with perfectly structured arguments the positions of afrocentrists and of Bernal for the origins of the ancient Greek civilization.

Moreover Lefkowitz published two books for the whole subject in 1996. The first (Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History, Basic Books 1996) is her detailed review and critical investigation of various positions of afrocentrist writers and simultaneously a historical documentation of real date. In the second work (Black Athena Revisited, The University of North Carolina Press 1996) brings the scientific thoroughness of Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers and includes various scientific papers from researchers of various backgrounds, archaeologists, historians, linguists, anthropologists. The articles of this tome examine various claims of the Black Athena, rejecting them one at a time.

The impact of these two works has been catalytic for the discussion of afrocentrism in America. These studies highlighted the emptiness of the afrocentrist arguments and of Bernal, and they practically cleared the subject from the academic point of view. Despite all that, the afrocentrists return after their initial retreat. In 1999 the book of an American journalist named Richard Poe was published, called Black Spark, White Fire, underlying the essential contribution of the African civilizations in the development of the European civilization. Poe thinks that ancient Greece accepted a wide colonization of African groups which gave the initiation for cultural creativity. In the end of 2001 Martin Bernal came back with the collective tome Black Athena Writes Back (Duke University Press), where he tries to eliminate the points of various scientists from Black Athena Revisited and rekindle the interest for afrocentrism and its theories that were declining during the last 5 years.

The interpretation of the origin of afrocentrism.

The historical points of afrocentrism were developed as a reaction to two basic factors: the borderline position of the black population in the American society for decades, and the absence of a brightly recorded historical past. What afrocentrism really aims for is to seize the glory of the Greek civilization with indirect means.

It is common in the area of historiography, peoples and population groups that do not have a field of historical references, where they could go back to in order to confirm their confidence, to replace this lack of history with showing their own structured identities within other collectivities, recognized for their cultural contribution, like Hellenism. In our case the African American community has an indigenous disadvantage: it is historically hovering since their presence in America was the result of an adjacent commercial activity of the White Europeans and Arabs of Western Africa, called slavery.

More specifically, the historical and archaeological theories of afrocentrists and of Bernal, reverse consciously or unconsciously the interpreting scheme of cultural diffusionism from a supreme center. This scheme the afrocentrists reject officially as an ideological product of white colonialism and scientific anti-Semitism. They place ancient Egypt in the center of their scheme, since the Egyptian civilization was indeed a highly valued creation. Afrocentrist writers are not mentioned often, at least the wisest of them, in indigenous African civilizations such as the ones in Mali or Rhodesia because the absence of great historical leftovers does not make it easy for them to develop their theory for the African origin of civilization. On the contrary their efforts are focused on the usurpation of ancient Egypt, which is the real key in the whole debate about afrocentrism.

Were the ancient Egyptians black?

The whole discussion about whether or not the ancient Egyptians were black starts most likely from the confusion or a misreading of physical and cultural geography. Geographically speaking, Egypt belongs to the continent of Africa, but it does not belong there from the cultural point of view. There is no unified African civilization, only local displays. All of Northern Africa above the Sahara desert is culturally similar to the Mediterranean world and much less similar to Western and Central Africa. Before the investigation of racial consistency of ancient Egyptians, we should define that the term “black” does not completely relate to the opinions of ancient Greeks and Romans. As white peoples they would call any inhabitant of the Middle East or of Northern Africa that had even the slightest darker skin color as “black” “dark colored” “colored”. In any case the Greeks distinguished between the Egyptians and the Ethiopians (=people with dark look).

Today’s terminology suggests that the Negros (from latin niger) are blacks, and they historically come from the regions beneath the Sahara dessert. Already from the period of the Ancient Kingdom (3100-2270 BC) the blacks inhabited areas far away from Egypt, the area of Nubia (present day Soudan). The Nubians were indeed a black population and as such they are depicted in the Egyptian art. The Egyptians themselves are depicted as different from the Nubians and in contradistinction to them. The science of natural anthropology considers the ancient Egyptians a race of Mediterranean origin which appeared to have, in a considerable percentage, relativity with the white Indo-European nations. (Loring Brace in the collective tome Black Athena Revisited, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London 1996 and John Baker, Race, Oxford University Press 1974). There was an important percentage of the Egyptian population that resembled white characteristics.

The ancient Egyptian monuments give us many such indications. A mural from the period of the Ancient Kingdom depicts the daughter of Pharaoh Cheops queen Hetep-Heres B, having soft characteristics and blond hair. There are dozens of embalmed bodies widely known as mummies that preserve the Mediterranean anthropological characteristics. Mummies of important individuals, such as of Pharaoh Seti I (1306-1290 BC) have been described by experts to be of Mediterranean type. The case of the embalmed body of Ramses II is well known (exhibited in the Cairo Museum). This mummy has red hair and an anthropological type similar to findings in the European inland. In the same category belong the saved anthropological leftovers of most Pharaohs, especially of the older phases.

A differentiation in the anthropological material and in the yield of characteristics is observed with the declaration to the throne of the foreign dynasty of Nubian princes. In the 8th century BC the Egyptian state was invaded by Nubians, who established the 25th Dynasty (746-655 BC), with Tankhara as the first king. The Egyptians had conscience that they were a different people from their black southern neighbours. This can be also seen in the hieroglyph scriptures depicting the Nubians.

The conquest of Nubia from the Egyptians was complete in 1840 BC from Pharaoh Sesostris III. Sesostris constructed impressive forts in Nubia and in its borders with Egypt in order to defend his kingdom from a possible attack from the black Nubians. The offering column at Semmeh, raised by the Pharaoh characteristically reads “the south border was constructed in the 8th year by the glorious king of Upper and Lower Egypt Sesostris III, to avert any black trying to cross, from water or from land, on ship or any other flock of blacks. Excluded are the blacks coming to trade at Iken or passing through with permission.” (James H. Breasted, History of Egypt, London 1909, 69).

The ancient Egyptians where of Mediterranean origin, Nubians were blacks, as the historical data suggests. The black classical philosopher Frank Snowden urges the afrocentrist writers to study the Nubians as the first black civilization and not as the ancient Egyptians who were something else entirely. Bernal considers that Socrates was of African origin. As evidence he appeals the references of Plato’s and Xenophon’s students that he looked like a Satyr. Also some of the busts that were created after the death of Socrates picture him with a pug nose, wide nostrils and a big mouth, and all these are indications that he was black according to Bernal. In reality the ancient sculptures simply reproduced the ironic observations and the weird comments that spread back then for a man whose ideas attracted public attention. Besides, the ancient Greeks gave rug noses to both Ethiopians and the Scythes that inhabited Southern Russia. If Socrates or one of his ancestors had even slightly dark colored skin that wouldn’t escape the attention of his contemporaries, moreover the attention of the sophists or comedian Aristophanes who satirized Socrates mercilessly.

As far as the question of the anthropological type of queen Cleopatra is concerned, let it be reported that in all known depictions, sculptures and coins, Cleopatra has clearly Mediterranean characteristics. The dynasty of Ptolemy in Egypt had followed the tactic of endogamy while the Greek population kept its distance from the Egyptian residents. The afrocentrists consciously neglect that the dynasty of Ptolemy were princes of Greek origin, not Egyptian. The misconception about Cleopatra came most likely from the selective reading of Shakespeare’s play “Antony and Cleopatra”. The English poet calls Cleopatra tawny and black. However with these adjectives he does not refer to her origin. Shakespeare had relied on Plutarch’s Antony and knew that Cleopatra belonged to the Greek dynasty: “How good she is and worthy as a queen / born of king from a line of kings” (V. ii 326-27, translation by Vasilis Rotas). The adjective black given to her is due to the metaphorical figure of speech that Cleopatra had the sun as her lover while Antony was away.

Conclusions

Afrocentrism, as an ideological and political component, has a specific origin and use. In its current form it is not but a by-product of multicultural political correctness. These trends tend to abolish objectivity itself and the rational establishment of data. The past is relativized and made into a useful tool for anyone that wants to form a specific picture of history, to satisfy selfish political ambitions.

http://ioanniskotoulas.blogspot.com/

Hellenistic coins dating back Alexander the Great’s era found in northern Syria

2010-03-04T00:12:00.000+02:00

Washington, March 3 : Reports indicate that a collection of Hellenistic coins dating back to the era of Alexander the Great in northern Syria have been found by a local man

According to a report in Global Arab Network, a local man found the coins near Najm Castle in the Manbej area in Aleppo governorate, as he was preparing his land for construction, uncovering a bronze box that contained around 250 coins.

He promptly delivered the coins to the authorities who in turn delivered them to Aleppo Department of Archaeology and Museum.

Yousef Kanjo, the director of archaeological excavations at Aleppo Department of Archaeology and Museum, said that the box contained two groups of silver Hellenistic coins: 137 tetra drachma (four drachmas) coins and 115 drachma coins.

One side of the tetra drachma coins depicts Alexander the Great, while the other side depicts the Greek god Zeus sitting on a throne with an eagle on his outstretched right arm.

34 of these coins bear the inscription “King Alexander” in Greek, while 81 coins bear the inscription “Alexander” and 22 coins bear “King Phillip.”

The drachma coins bear the same images as the tetra drachma, with “Alexander” inscribed on 100 of them and “Philip” on 15 of them.

http://newstiger.in/?p=12300

Laminated Linen Protected Alexander the Great

2010-02-24T22:00:00.003+02:00

Alexander's men wore linothorax, a highly effective type of body armor created by laminating together layers of linen, research finds.

A Kevlar-like armor might have helped Alexander the Great (356–323 B.C.) conquer nearly the entirety of the known world in little more than two decades, according to new reconstructive archaeology research.

Presented at the annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America in Anaheim, Calif., the study suggests that Alexander and his soldiers protected themselves with linothorax, a type of body armor made by laminating together layers of linen.

"While we know quite a lot about ancient armor made from metal, linothorax remains something of a mystery since no examples have survived, due to the perishable nature of the material," Gregory Aldrete, professor of history and humanistic studies at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, told Discovery News.

"Nevertheless, we have managed to show that this linen armor thrived as a form of body protection for nearly 1,000 years, and was used by a wide variety of ancient Mediterranean civilizations," Aldrete said.

Indeed, Aldrede and co-investigator Scott Bartell discovered that linothorax was......
widely mentioned in ancient records.

"Currently we have 27 descriptions by 18 different ancient authors and nearly 700 visual images on objects ranging from Greek vases to Etruscan temple reliefs," Aldrete said.

The main visual evidence for Alexander wearing linothorax is the famous "Alexander Mosaic" from Pompeii, in which the Macedonian king is depicted with this sort of armor.

Indeed, in his "Life of Alexander," the Greek historian Plutarch states that Alexander wore "a breastplate of folded (or doubled) linen" at the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 B.C. This battle a was a huge victory for the Greeks and led to the fall of the Achaemenid Empire.

According to the researchers, there is further evidence that linen breastplates were standard equipment in the Macedonian army.

"When Alexander was in India, and received 25,000 new suits of armor for his army, he is described as having ordered the old worn-out suits of armor to be burned. This would only make sense if they had been made of fabric rather than metal," Aldrete said.

In order to determine how wearable this armor was, and how effective it would have been in protecting its wearer from arrows and other battlefield hazards, Aldrete and Bartell reconstructed several complete sets of linen armor using only material that were only available in the ancient world.

"The hardest part of the project was finding truly authentic linen. It had to be made from flax plants that were grown, harvested and processed, spun and woven by hand," Aldrete said.

The other key ingredient was glue, which was placed over various layers of linen. The researchers chose to work with two simpler glues that would have been available everywhere: a glue made from the skins of rabbits and another from flax seeds.

Tests included shooting the resulting patches with arrows and hitting them with a variety of weapons including swords, axes and spears.

"Our controlled experiments basically dispelled the myth that armor made out of cloth must have been inferior to other available types. Indeed, the laminated layers function like an ancient version of modern Kevlar armor, using the flexibility of the fabric to disperse the force of the incoming arrow," Aldrete said.

According to Heidi Sherman, linen expert and professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, the researchers have achieved some very convincing results.

"One cannot know with complete certainty how close the model is to the linen armor used by Alexander the Great's army, but several layers of fused linen can indeed withstand quite a rigorous battering. They would have provided ample protection under rather extreme conditions," Sherman told Discovery News.

By Rossella Lorenzi
news.discovery.com/archaeology

Falsifying History - Fabricating a Fake Identity: Skopjan pseudo-Makedonism on MACEDONIAN THEATER

2010-02-01T09:42:00.000+02:00

Miltiades Elia Bolaris
January 25, 2010

δῆλον δὲ πρῶτον μὲν ὁρισαμένοις τί τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ ψεῦδος. τὸ μὲν γὰρ λέγειν τὸ ὂν μὴ εἶναι ἢ τὸ μὴ ὂν εἶναι ψεῦδος, τὸ δὲ τὸ ὂν εἶναι καὶ τὸ μὴ ὂν μὴ εἶναι ἀληθές, ὥστε καὶ ὁ λέγων εἶναι ἢ μὴ ἀληθεύσει ἢ ψεύσεται (Αριστοτέλης, Μεταφυσικά)

This will be plain if we first define truth and falsehood. To say that what is is not, or that what is not is, is false; but to say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true; and therefore also he who says that a thing is or is not will say either what is true or what is false. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)

Once someone rejects truth and accepts falsehood, the search for explanations to cover the tracks of his falsehood becomes essential. This inevitably leads to the creation of an alternate reality that attempts to explain the unexplainable. The pseudo-Makedonist regime in Skopje has elevated fraud to the level of science, and it has correspondingly reduced science to being the contemptible paramour of their repulsive politics of hatred, ultra-nationalist bigotry and ethnic intolerance.

The Skopjan blog http://my.opera.com/ancientmacedonia/blog is one of the numerous ......
conduits of extremism and propaganda constantly polluting the internet with outrageous pseudo-history, invented pseudo-linguistics, ethnic hatred and shameless misinformation.

That aside, many of its articles make excellent recreational reading of great amusement value. Their pretentious and serious-sounding pseudo-scientific tone is coupled with some of the most hilarious mental inventions that a twisted mind in the service of a third world regime propaganda department can fabricate. The truly tragic part of this story is that students in FYROM, eager to find the truth on their identity, reading this in their own language, have very limited, if any, means of double checking this crime perpetrated against their fertile minds, and unsuspectingly accept this fraud as universally accepted truth. This is, unfortunately, the fate of people who live in regimes that treat their own citizens as docile subjects of the all powerful political state apparatus, with contempt normally reserved for pasture animals.

MACEDONIAN THEATER

There is a method to good propaganda. Any experienced propagandist always starts with something factually correct that is well established and known to be true, in order to gain his victim´s confidence and to relax his critical thinking into accepting falsehoods and lies further down:

"Theatre-Teatar-theatron –θέατρον

Wednesday, 23. December 2009, 10:46:42

The first recorded theatrical event was a performance of the sacred plays of the myth of Osiris and Isis in 2500 BC in Egypt.This story of the god Osiris was performed annually at festivals throughout the civilization, marking the beginning of a long relationship between theatre and religion.

Stanton, Sarah; Banham, Martin (1996). "Middle East and North Africa". Cambridge paperback guide to theatre. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. p. 241. ISBN 0-521-44654-6."

The article pompously starts with a dictionary entry from a Cambridge University publication on theater. The serious aura of Cambridge university is cunningly used by the propagandist to start off sounding as intellectually serious. This, quote, incidentally, has no relation to what is in store for us later on, it is just a relaxing pill.

"..............

How the culture began in Macedonia?

From Neolithic to....Macedon and Pierus had daughters-MUSES....

Dionysus celebrated ....and was celebrated...Orpheus....Ksantika-Xanthicus"

The article starts, the author has committed his own words on ink and now we enter the realm of delirium. His sentences lack cohesion: an era (Neolithic) is chronologically contrasted to a land (Macedon) and Greek mythology is thrown in for good measure. Pierus/Πίερος (Mythological eponymous hero of Pieria/Πιερία=wealthy land) with his daughters the Muses/Μούσες (the words Music/Μουσική and Museum/Μουσείον come from their name) are mixed in with the Greek God of wine Dionysus/Διόνυσος. The Thracian God of music Orpheus/Ορφεύς is mentioned being celebrated along with the Macedonian lunar month (corresponding to March) Xanthicos/Ξανθικός (also known as Ξανδικός/Xandikos). Xanthicos is coupled with the word Ksantika which is supposed to explain it, somehow, completing this bizarrely incomprehensible sentence.

Time for truth again, and here once again the propagandist simply copies an entry ontheater" from "The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology". Very impressive reference, indeed!

"Etymology:

1.theatre

U.S. theater in antiquity, open-air structure for plays and spectacles XIV; playhouse XVI. — OF. t(h)eatre (mod. théâtre) or L. theātrum — Gr. théātron ´place for viewing´, f. theâsthai behold.

So theatrical XVI; sb. pl. XVII. f. late L. theātricus — Gr. theātrikós.

2.theater

late 14c., "open air place in ancient times for viewing spectacles," from O.Fr. theatre (12c.), from L. theatrum, from Gk. theatron "theater," lit. "place for viewing," from theasthai "to behold" (cf. thea "a view," theates "spectator") + -tron, suffix denoting place.

3.Polykleitos (Circa 350 B.C.)

A renowned sculptor, Polykleitos the Younger was architect of the Tholos at Epidauros. Started around 365 B. C., the Tholos exhibited elaborate detailing...

Notes:"

As I understood it, the Oxford dictionary refers the English word for theater to the Latin word which is in turn refered to the original Greek word Theatron/Θέατρον.

Before we go any further, let us stop here for a moment: just below the dictionary entry, the Skopjan propagandist puts his own "notes", without a break, in a way that the unsuspecting reader would think they are simply a continuation of the Oxford dictionary. Then he starts his attack:

"notes:

Epidauros theatre----- Greeks (around 365 B. C) in Epidauros

ok...let see...in Greek language

behold=βλέπω, αντικρύζω, παρατηρώ=blepo, antikryzo, paratiro

where is theâsthai?"

I suppose we are now in trouble! True, the Oxford dictionary tells us that the word theater derives its etymology from Latin Theatrum which in turn takes it from the Greek Theatron/Θέατρον, a place of viewing, from theasthai/θέασθαι that means to behold. But "Wait!" cries the cunning propagandist: there is no word theastai/θέασθαι in the Greek language! Where did Oxford dictionary find it and came up with it? There is only: "βλέπω, αντικρύζω, παρατηρώ=blepo, antikryzo, paratiro! where is theâsthai?"

Amazing! The Oxford dictionary has been caught with its pants down, so to speak, urgent assistance is needed to be sent from Skopje to revise it! The cunning propagandist is obviously using some pocket size modern Greek dictionary and is at a loss for not finding an ancient Greek word in it, in its original format…horror of horrors…I looked up some Latin word in an Italian dictionary and I could not find it! Moreover, I looked up a Sanskrit word in a modern Hindi dictionary and it was not there! Now, finally, I can completely understand. For someone that speaks a language that was established and codified as the "Makedonski language"/"Mакедонски јазик" in 1944, using the Bulgarian dialect spoken in Pelagonia, with a lot of lexical borrowings from Serbian, the notion of a historical language with thousands of years of history and development behind it sounds incomprehensible. Unfortunately for him, Greek is one of these languages, but it is not the only one. There are several historical languages like it, Latin, Sanskrit, Chinese, Hebrew join Greek in this category. All of them survive as written and spoken languages in some form or another whether as intact languages (Hebrew, Chinese and Greek) or in dialectical form as new languages (Latin survives as Italian, French, Romanian, Portuguese, Catalan, etc, Sanskrit survives as modern Hindi, Urdu, and other Indian subcontinent languages, and both Greek and Chinese exist in multiple spoken but not written dialects).

I open the G. Babiniotes Lexico tes Neas Ellenikes Glossas/Λεξικό της Νέας Ελληνικής Γλώσσας, Lexicon of the Modern Greek language, a dictionary which, with over 150,000 lemmata only partially covers the modern Greek language, and it contains no ancient Greek words, unless currently used. The Words found in the Greek language in all its eras, approximates one million lemmata. By comparison, the Oxford English Dictionary contains 170,000 words, with about 50,000 obsolete words in the English language. On page 742 we read (I consciously did not include words that are not related, like lemmata related to the word Theos/Θεός, God, which appear among them but are etymologically unrelated):

Θέα/thea
Θεαθήναι/theathenai
Θέαμα/theama
Θεαματικός/theamaticos
Θεαματικότητα/theamatikoteta
Θέαση/theasi
Θεατής/theates
Θεατός/theatos
Θεατράνθρωπος/theatranthropos
Θεατρίζομαι/theatrizomai
Θεατρικογράφος/theatricographos
Θεατρικὀς/theatricos
Θεατρικότητα /theatricoteta
Θεατρίνα/theatrina
Θεατρινισμός/theatrinismos
Θεατρίνος/theatrinos

We now move to page 743 and we continue:

Θεατρισμός/theatrismos
Θέατρο/theatro
Θεατρολογία/theatrologia
Θεατρομανής/theatromanes
Θεατρόφιλος/theatrophilos
Θεατροφιλικός/theatrophilicos
Θεατρώνης/theatronis

The word theasthai/θέασθαι is indeed missing, simply because in modern Greek it does not exist in that exact grammatical format, as an aparemphaton, "of the infinitive mood" as it appears in ancient Greek. While theasthai/θέασθαι is not to be found, the word from which theasthai is derived, the original word of both theasthai and theatron, is still widely used in modern Greek: the word Θέα/thea=view, especially from above, as from a mountaintop, or a high building. Many toponyms, villages and hotels in Greece are named Kalithea/Καλιθέα or Kallithea/Καλλιθέα (written with either one l/λ or two ll/λλ) meaning "Beautiful View", or as the Italians would say Bella Vista, or the French Bellevue.

The Skopjan propagandist remains unconvinced:

"Question:

Indeed the word behold explains the notion of word theâsthai?"

The answer will be obvious once I translate the first words found in the aforementioned dictionary:

Θέα/thea=view, especially from above, as from a mountaintop, or a high building
Θεαθήναι/theathenai=being seen
Θέαμα/theama=spectacle, cinema or television program
Θεαματικός/theamaticos=spectacular
Θεαματικότητα/theamatikoteta=spectacularity, popularity of a television program or a movie in cinema
Θέαση/theasi=viewing
Θεατής/theates=viewer
Θεατός/theatos=visible, opposite Αθέατος/atheatos: invisible

Now he challenges us again, by being absolutely certain in his pseudo-scientific credentials:

"Root of this word theâsthai does not exist in the so-called IE languages."

He is again caught lying through his teeth, and we are certain that he is lying, not simply making a mistake because if someone is not sure, they can at least search for it. When you search, you eventually find things. If, on the other hand, all you want to do is fabricate a BIG LIE, then the truth is against you, you need to cover your tracks, like a dog covers his excrement: this is why Skopjan propagandists are constantly becoming the laughing stock of Greeks who mistake them for idiots.

Far from being idiots, they do the best they can with an insurmountable task at hand: they try to prove that a mouse is an elephant and that a bull is a rabbit, or something to that effect. They know they are lying…and in my experience with several of them, once you catch them fabricating facts and prove them wrong, they either throw insults at you (the internet makes it easy for someone to be rude) and disappear, or they casually move on to the next BIG LIE, as if nothing happend.

Despite his pretentious certainty that "Root of this word theâsthai does not exist in the so-called IE languages." the truth is that indeed it does: theasthai comes from theasis, and theasis comes from thea. Θέα/thea=view is derived from *θήFη < θάFα < ΙΕ *dhau, meaning "to see", "to look", see also the word θαύμα/thauma= miracle and of course: thea-tron/θέα-τρον, theater, theates/θεατής=viewer and theaomai/θεάομαι=I am viewing.

G. Babiniotes also gives us an alternate derivation from: IE *dhmsva- < *dhem-bh- (see the word thambos/θάμβος=bright light).

Herebelow starts the real circus. Here we need to sit down. The thoughtful propagandist understands our situation and kindly obliges, as we shall see:

"Answer:?

Let see...

Macedonian

théātron=tron=трон=king chair"

Thank lord Zeus, now we can sit down. A throne has indeed been provided for us. Now we can bear whatever comes our way:

"Tholos=stol;stolovi;stolot etc..=стол=chair;stool;seat

Greeks
chair=καρέκλα=karekla
stool=σκαμνί, έδρανο, σκαμπό=skamni, edrano, skampo
seat=κάθισμα, έδρα, καθίζω=kathisma, edra, kathizo
theâsthai
1.sthai=stoi-стои=stand;stay up
2.sthai=stoi (na mesto)-стои (на место)=sit
3.sthai=astal-астал-stol=table (eat),chair
4.sthai=staja-odaja-стаја=chamber;room
etc....

theâsthai=

the=the end =d_end)macedonian)=

asthai=_sta(v)i;_stoi

theâsthai=de_stavi;de_stoi=let put(sit);let stay (sit)"

If I were a Roman I would have exclaimed in desperation: Reductio ad absurdum ad maiorem Scupi gloriam, but I am not, so I will simply say: Reduction to absurdity for the greater glory of Skopje!

What was that all about?

Tholos/θόλος is not a stool or a Slavonic table (from Proto-Slavic *stolъ=table), Tholos/θόλος is "covered roof, a cupola, a dome., a rounded vaulted chamber". Anybody that has been to Epidauros or has seen its Tholos in a reconstructed image will immediately recognize the round building with the conical roof. Tholos is also linguistically related to the word Thalamos/Θάλαμος which means a room in the inner part of the house, but also an underground chamber, a cove, a cavern. These are both words that appear in homer but are still used in modern Greek. An interesting derivative word in Modern Greek is Thalami/θαλάμι which means the cavernous home of an octopus, and also a trap use to catch an octopus, usually in the shape of a rounded pot which the octopus adopts as a home.

Alas, our mental torture has no quick end in sight:

"next....

"Greek Theater" in Epidaurus is unbelievable stupidity...from some modern scholars...Residents of the city states were swept by Macedonians-Philip II of Macedon

Epidarium was built by Macedonians, built at a very strategic place, where Philip 2 intended to shift the Macedonian army against the Persian fleet in the Aegean.

Therefore, around the theater were built library, stadium, camp, hospital, rotunda - old shrine dedicated to Asklepios....altar on the stage of the theater where was bust of Dionysus."

So now that we learn that it was Philippos/Φίλιππος the father of Alexander the Great who built Epidaurus, let us see what some impartial entity like UNESCO has on its website describing the monuments of Epidaurus and its famous theater, a Unesco dedicated monument. It is written for all of humanity to read, in English, French, Arabic, Chinese, Russian and Spanish:

"In a small valley in the Peloponnesus, the shrine of Asklepios, the god of medicine, developed out of a much earlier cult of Apollo (Maleatas), during the 6th century BC at the latest, as the official cult of the city state of Epidaurus. Its principal monuments, particularly the temple of Asklepios, the Tholos and the Theatre - considered one of the purest masterpieces of Greek architecture – date from the 4th century. The vast site, with its temples and hospital buildings devoted to its healing gods, provides valuable insight into the healing cults of Greek and Roman times."

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/491

In other words, Epidaurus with its Ascleipeion and its Tholos was not built by Philip II, the Greek King of Macedonia in the 4th century BC, but at least two centuries earlier, on a shrine that was probably much earlier than that. Greek history is not our Skopjan propagandist´s forte, it seems. A couple centuries here or there, makes no difference. This is small change when compared to the adoption of Philippos II/Φίλιππος Β´ and Alexandros the Great/Αλέξανδρος ο Μέγας, the greatest of all Macedonian kings by the modern descendants of the Draguvites/Dragovici/Драговити, Sagudates/Sagudaci/Сагудати, Bersites/Brsjaci/Берзити and the other Slavic tribes that entered the Balkans a full thousand years AFTER these Greek kings of Macedonia had passed into Hades.

Now exposed, our history fabricator runs unbridled:

"There is no any facts about hellenisation (word from 19 cent....german nonsens) of Macedonian culture"

Yes, indeed, for our friends from Skopje 19th century those German intellectuals were nonsensical vagabonds of some sort...what do they have to show to the world? Who was

Goethe? Schelling? Hegel? Marx? Nietzsche? Bismarck? Who was the Hellenist historian Johann Gustav Droysen? Very nonsensical characters indeed, these Germans! Calling the era after Alexander Hellenistic as Droysen did, was indeed too much!...just because a Hellenic language, Attic Greek was spoken and promoted by Alexander the Great and his Macedonians and was thereafter spoken in the Macedonian Hellenistic kingdoms? Nonsensical Germans, indeed! How could it have escaped them the rumor that Alexandros was in fact a Bulgarian-speaking Skopjan komitadzi called Aleksandar Veliki? All they have to do is read the recently published "Makedonskata Enciklopedija" in Skopje and they will learn all they need to learn about that famous Aleksandar, the proto-Slav kingpin whose humongous statue has already arrived from Florence and is being prepared for installation in Skopje´s central square.

" if it is known that in Athens in 5th century BC there was a wooden theater with wooden benches that once collapsed.

Athenians...they "known and applied" versus gorgeously marble theaters that were built from Macedonians, everywhere to where Macedonians arrived."

If anyone was wondering what is that makes great theater, the answer is obvious: marble! This is what makes great theater! What audacity could the Athenians have to boast of creating Drama and Comedy, with such trivial theatranthropoi as Aescylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes, holding their theatrical events in such embarrassingly primitive wooden benches (one of which, in fact once collapsed, we are told!)! What shame! Soon enough someone will claim that Shakespeare´s Globe theater was some wooden structure! For heaven´s sake…who would call that a theater worthy of the name? Theater, let us remember, by Skopjan definition means:

"Macedonian

théātron=tron=трон=king chair"

That is correct…Theatron means chairs…in fact a royal chair, a throne! But if TRON is a throne, a king´s chair, then why did they call it THEA-Tron? Whatever happened to Thea-? And what does "Thea-" mean? In the beginning of this article we were given the words:

"Theatre-Teatar-theatron –θέατρον

Let me follow this, because I am already getting confused:

Theatre is the English word for theater. Sofar so good.

Teatar is the Serbian, Croatian and Slavomacedonian word for theater.

Theatron –θέατρον is the Greek word for theater.

Let us follow this again: teaTAR…theaTRON. Teatar/Tеатар. We know that Teatar is theater in Serbian, Croatian, Bulgarian etc, but we are asked to believe it is also the ancient Macedonian word for it. Teatar ends in –TAR and theatron θέατρον, the Greek word ends in TRON. The word-magician is telling us that this is all derived from Tron the Makedonski Throne. Now if Tron is the Makedonski word for Throne and Theatron is derived from Throne, then how come the Makedonski word for Theater is not ending in TRON but only the Greek one does: teaTAR…theaTRON. Something is fishy here, obviously. To make things worse we find out that tron is throne in Polish, Hungarian, Scottish Gaelic, Danish, and several other European languages, most of which are languages that I would say have never had any contact with Skopje, but all of them share one common thread: they do not have the Θ sound, not for the Th spelling anyway. It is also obvious that all these languages borrowed tron, the throne from Latin. In the Latin Dictionary of Lewis & Short, Oxford University Press, 1993, Theatrum i, n., =θέατρον, a playhouse, theater, is referring us to the original Greek.

Someone would wish that the anonymous author would have enlighten our ignorance by explaining how is theatron/θέατρον derived from tron/трон but then becomes teatar/Театар/Театър once again. And why does Theatron/θέατρον, with the –on ending ends in –tron, but in Slavomacedonian ends in –tar? There are many words in Greek that end in –tron: Lytron/Λύτρον, Phobetron/Φόβητρον, Electron/Ηλεκτρον, etc. The ending –tron/-τρον is actually very typical for many Greek words but non-existing as a Slavonic ending, except for Greek loan words.

The linguistic derivation still begs for explanation:

Tron/трон

Theatron/θέατρον/Театрон (note the absence of a letter to express the Greek Th/Θ sound in all Slavonic languages, since this sound is not to be found in Slavic languages. It is always replaced, depending on the language by either T or F)

Teatar/Театар

Many linguists would commit suicide being at the loss in trying to solve this puzzle.

Theater or in Greek Theatron, starts from the Th/Θ sound, found in Greek as well as in English. It is very common sound in Greek so much so that a letter has been committed to express it. There is no Slavic word that contains the Greek Th/Θ sound. There is no such word, in ANY Slavic language: simply none! Theodore Dostoyevsky is pronounced Fyodor Dostoyevsky, in Russian and Theodore Zhivkov, the Bulgarian leader was Todor Zhivkov. Despite pretending to be descendents of the ancient Macedonians, our Slavonic friends north of Greece are unable to pronounce the Macedonian name of Alexander the Great´s sister, now also the name of Greece´s second largest city: Thessaloniki/Θεσσαλονίκη: her Macedonian name is a phonetic impossibility for the Slav-"Makedonskis" who shortened her name to the more manageable Solun/Солун. Irredentist cries of Solun is the capital of Makedonija, sound out of place coming from people who cannot even find a Th/θ sound in their supposedly "Macedonian" language to properly pronounce Thessaloniki/Θεσσαλονίκη, a pronunciation that corresponds to the her true MACEDONIAN name.

Thirdly, Tron, even spelled in Cyrillic characters as трон/tron is still a Greek word with another impossible (for a Slavic-speaking Makedonski) to pronounce Th/θ sound: Thronos/θρόνος, from which the English word for Throne is derived. Its Indo-European root lemma is: dher-2 meaning to hold firmly, to support. This root gives us words like farm, firm, affirm, the Latin firmus, strong, suffixed with zero-grade form *dhr-ono-, throne from Greek thronos, seat, throne("support"). The same roots gives us the Sanskrit Dharma, statute and dharana, holding firm, and the Persian name Darius, meaning holding firm the good, from ancient Persian daraya, to hold firm, to uphold.

"First Macedonian theater in Athens dedicated to Dionysus, built in 330...was build from the occupation -Macedonian Army....This Theater brings all the features of the Macedonian buildings."

By now we have lost any hope that our pseudo-makedonski propagandist would tell us history the way it is, so we check the dates and sure enough we catch him fabricating long tales again:

"The third theatre at Athens was built around 330 B.C. under Lycurgus. The Lycurgan theatre is the first permanent (that is, stone) theatre at Athens, and Lycurgus´ building project produced much of the Athenian theatre that one sees today."

Lycourgos/Λυκούργος was the Athenian manager of the public revenue office, under whom the rebuilding of the theater of Dionysos was executed. The main political figure of that era, let us remember was Demosthenes/Δημοσθένης son of Demosthenes, the staunchest Athenian political enemy of the Macedonian king Philip II. The theater was built 330BC, and Demosthenes was in power from 342 BC to 324BC. There were no Macedonians during this time in Athens - they came much later, after the theater was rebuilt. Is this important? Not really, but it is always good to catch a pseudo-makenonist lying shamelessly and exposing his historical fabrications even in smaller details that truly make no difference to his case…if he had one.

"next..dramatists and great tragedians....Euripides
The theater of Dion hosted the first performance of Euripides world-famous tragedy Bacchae, which he wrote at Pella of Macedonia. Euripides died and was buried in Macedonia.
etc.....
Therefore it is macedonization of culture and not hellenisation."

We know that the Macedonian king Archelaos/Αρχέλαος (derived from: archo/άρχω,=to lead + Laos/ λαός= the people in arms) invited the Athenian dramatist Euripides/Ευριπίδης to Macedonia/Μακεδονία. The Macedonian kingdom was growing and Archelaos had just built his new capital, Pella/Πέλλα. The spoken Macedonian dialect, a hitherto unwritten form of Greek, related to Aeolian dialect and intelligible to Northwest Greek dialect speakers (Aetolians, Epirotans, etc), was deemed insufficient for the running of the fast growing kingdom. Attic Greek, the dialect of philosophy (the Athenians Plato/Πλάτων and the Macedonian Aristotle/Αριστοτέλης) and Drama (the Athenians dramatists mentioned earlier), the Greek dialect most advanced and respected and most studied by all educated Greeks throughout the Hellenic world, was thus introduced as the official language of Macedonia. Archelaos himself invited several poets, philosophers, men of the letters and wise men (Socrates, Plato´s teacher reputedly refused the invitation) to his palace and it is correct that Euripides wrote and played Bacchae/Βάκχαι in Macedonia. He also wrote the drama Archaelaos/Αρχέλαος, named after the king, a play now lost. While Archaelaos/Αρχέλαος, the drama play, has been lost, Bacchae/Βάκχαι survived antiquity and is available for all to read in its original beautiful Attic Greek. We know that the ancients never made any translations of literary texts (most had to wait until the Renaissance to be translated into Latin and much later into the main European languages) and drama is not as universal an art as say, painting or music: you either understand every nuance of the spoken text or miss the whole plot. We know that Euripides performed Archaelaos/Αρχέλαος and Bacchae/Βάκχαι in Macedonia and we know that both plays were performed in Attic Greek in the open theater of Dion/Δίον, the holy Macedonian city of Zeus/Ζεύς-Dios/Διός.

My question, therefore, to the paid propagandist from Skopje who wrote this pitiful pseudo-linguistic and history-falsifying paper is as follows:

Were the Macedonians just watching like some ignorant barbarians unable to comprehend the Greek poetry? Were the people of Dion, Aegai (in whose theater Philip himself was assassinated), Heracleia Lyncistis, Sirris, Amphipolis, Philippoi, Stoboi and Thassos simply flush with money and they were building marble theaters on a whim, just to hear some actors mumble about in a foreign incomprehensible tongue? Or were they all speaking and comprehending Greek just fine, and going to a Greek theater/θέατρον and to a Greek Gymnasion/Γυμνάσιον as a normal part of their every day existence as all other Greeks?

The answer to this question, which also gives an answer to what language was spoken during the time these theaters were built. It can be found written on the marble steps of Heracleia Lyncystis/Ηράκλεια Λυγκιστίς, a few minutes outside of Monastir/ Μοναστήρι/ Bitola/ Битола, and on the steps of the Greek theater of Stoboi/Στόβοι by Gradsko/Градско, south of Veles/Велес. These are thirty centimeter (30cm) tall inscribed letters and the language, as I recall them, was unmistakably not Bulgarian nor any proto-slavic dialect.

Since our friends from Skopje, Macedonians themselves as they claim, reputedly of the direct blood and linguistic line of the ancient Makednoi, can easily read the Greek language of the ancient Macedonians, I will repeat what was written, to the best of my recollection, on these theater steps, without any need to translate them:

ΑΡΤΕΜΙΣΙΑΣ ΦΥΛΗ . ΑΣΚΛΗΠΙΑΣ ΦΥΛΗ . ΗΡΑΚΛΕΙΑΣ ΦΥΛΗ . ΔΙΟΝΥΣΙΑΣ ΦΥΛΗ

Finally, a note on Euripides the Athenian dramatist, the third of the triad of Attic drama giants.

"Euripides died and was buried in Macedonia.
etc.....
Therefore it is macedonization of culture and not hellenisation."

The amazing genius of this argument is obvious. Any Arab can now claim that Alexander the Great died in Babylon which now lies in Iraq and was buried in Egypt. Alexander the Great, therefore, a cunning Arab nationalist could argue, was an Arab Haliph (not a proto-Slavic Czar, as Skopje pseudo-Makedonists claim him to be). Therefore, we should not be speaking of Hellenization of the East but Arabization of the East, a thousand years before the Arabs entered Egypt and Mesopotamia/Iraq.

Such an argument would be as laughable as the claim that Alexander was a Slav, a thousand years before the South Slavs invaded the Balkans. To their credit, the Arabs revere Alexander the Great for who he trully was, Iskander /الإسكندر الأكبر , the great king of the Greek-speaking/ باليونانية Macedonians. When a traveler is entering Alexandria of Egypt, a large bilingual sign reading ALEXANDRIA greets him: http://api.ning.com/files/VUrNRP7mCPTNOJ8238r6W5yAcogGhE81em8KK6tpFHyAM17NYwBccraFZrUAvtdJVaLDfPhSzOGyYaFsUa4kc77iGTLD8FJm/alexandria.jpg : Greek and Arabic.

The Arabs, of course, are serious people with great history of their own and centuries-old culture to show to the world. They are not plagued by the identity confusion and nightmarish insecurities tormenting some (but not all, by any means) of the Slavomacedonians: they do not need to pretend to be something they are not. Once a similar realization hits home at Skopje, and they come to grips with their own TRUE Slavic identity, they will suddenly realize that they do not need thirty meter tall bronze statues of Alexander the Great, a Greek king of the past, unrelated to them, to bolster a fake "Macedonian" identity. Then the mending of the trauma in their national psyche, and their relations with their own neighbors, including their Greek friends and partners to the south, will be as easy as 1,2,3.

Finally, here are the references of the anonymous propagandist:

"references:

Greeks (around 365 B. C) in Epidauros

1.The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology | 1996 | T. F. HOAD | Â© The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology 1996, originally published by Oxford University Press 1996.

2.Douglas Harper

3.Polykleitos

4.greek-english lexicon

5.Macedonian language...if you do not believe go to Idividi[sic]

continue..."

NOTES AND REFERENCES:

By "Skopjan" we define not the inhabitants of the city of Skopje, nor the people of the former Yugoslav Republic of Makedonija, but the irredentist, ethnic-engineering and history-falsifying policies emanating from the ultra-nationalist regime of Skopje and the propagandists in their (usually paid) service.

WHAT´S THE POINT?

The first thing that someone with even elementary knowledge of Greek would ask, after reading this article would be: "Why on earth did you spend so much time writing it? What is the point of answering every lunacy coming out of Skopje?". This is a valid question, and many people asked me already the same question for similar articles. Truly, why should anyone spend ink and time defending the self-evident truth? Honestly, the more valid question, which they should be asking, should be not why I am writing these rebuttals, but WHY ARE THE SKOPJANS WRITING THEIR OUTLANDISH BOGUS THEORIES, to begin with! And why is Mr. George Soros spending his billions promoting the fake and fraudulent pseudo-makedonism:

http://www.soros.org.mk/archive/index.htm

There is a huge, well-oiled and paid organized propaganda industry supporting and bolstering pseudo-makedonism, the vast extent of which anyone can recognize in an quick instant by doing an internet search for anything "Macedonian", anywhere in the internet, where someone would be looking up something or anything about Macedonia, Macedonian History, Macedonian Culture, Macedonian language, Alexander the Great, Philip II, etc, etc. Everywhere you look up the internet is polluted by a virtual tsunami of outrageously scatological in quality products of hideous, truth-twisting propaganda which passes itself as casually "impartial" information. The (admittedly idiotic) "teatar from tron" article at hand about the supposed "Macedonian Theater" is but a drop in the ocean, just one of thousands out there. I myself admit feeling like an idiot many times, trying to defend the self evident against vicious by the BIG LIE perpetrators, spending untold hours doing the research to answer what is clear and obvious, but still, I believe that truth needs to document itself against falsehood. I find the strength to continue exposing deception and fake arguments in the same way that a lawyer needs to expose defamation to defend someone whose name has been tarnished has been hideous slanders and libel. Greeks or Greek-speaking persons can smell such pseudo-linguistic and pseudo-historian rotten fish from a mile, because they know Greek, and most of them know Greek history too. For them it is easy to spot the eye-popping, gutter-quality fraudulent fallacies that are being mass-produced daily and in untold qualities in Skopje. The obvious reason, for me is that the pseudo-Makedonists are not here to convince the Greeks. They know better than that and anyway, very few people, comparatively, speak Greek in this world anyway. The BIG LIE propaganda from Skopje is directed towards the wide world audience, the unsuspecting millions who have little or no knowledge of the bloody details of the Macedonian Issue, and most have little or no knowledge of ancient, medieval or modern European history and Balkan history in particular. To them I ask that if they want to be on the side of history and impartiality, then they should at least look up and read the letter that the 200 Classical Scholars from around the world sent to the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama:

http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html

ARE THEY ALL LIKE THAT?

Trying to find out if the opinions held by the ultra-nationalist VMRO-DPNE crackpots and disseminated through the internet reflect a more general view in FYROM, I was pleasantly surprise to find out that there are serious people indeed, probably the silent majority, who do not espouse this kind of unfounded theories. A quick check on the Slavomaceedonian Wikipedia confirmed my best hopes that there is future for reason to prevail at the end: Театарот во Античка Грција (Од Википедија)

http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B5%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82_%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%93%D1%80%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0

a. Latin Dictionary of Lewis & Short, Oxford University Press, 1993

b. Lexico tes Neas Ellenikes Glossas, G. Babiniotes /Λεξικό της Νέας Ελληνικής Γλώσσας, Γ. Μπαμπινιώτης , Athens 2002

c. The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots, Calvert Watkins, Boston, 2000

d. A New Greek and English Lexicon, James Donnegan, Boston, 1835

e. Liddell & Scott, Oxford University Press, 1952

f. Epidaurus and Epidaurus Theater: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/491 Unesco website

g. Theatre of Dionysus at Athens: http://traumwerk.stanford.edu:3455/Archaeopaedia/184 , Stanford University website.

h. http://www.soros.org.mk/archive/index.htm

i. The original "Macedonian theater" article can be found on this website:

http://my.opera.com/ancientmacedonia/blog/2009/12/23/macedonian-theatreteatar-theatron

j. Macedonian Evidence, Letter to Obama, http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html

k. Театарот во Античка Грција (Од Википедија), http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B5%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82_%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%93%D1%80%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0

http://macedonianissues.blogspot.com/2010/01/falsifying-history-fabricating-fake.html

Alexander the Great - Dr.Tellenbach interview

2010-01-21T18:57:00.000+02:00

Dr.Tellenbach gives an interview about Alexander the Great and the Opening of the World, the museum exhibition. Related articles and information at http://macedonia-evidence.org/museum-exhibition.html.

Introduction to Ancient Greek History from the Yale University

2010-01-10T14:19:00.000+02:00

In this lecture, Professor Kagan tells the story of the rise of Philip and describes his early actions: unifying Macedon, defeating barbarian armies, and creating a new, professional, national army. According to Professor Kagan, through these actions, Philip was able to make inroads into the Greek world. What made these inroads more effective was Philip's uncanny talent for diplomacy and the fighting between the various poleis. Eventually, the Greeks under the efforts of Athens and Demosthenes decided to face Philip in the battle of Chaeronea. The battle, though close, was won by Philip and his Macedonian forces. Finally, Professor Kagan evaluates the actions of Demosthenes and concludes that his actions should be judged as a noble endeavor of one who loved freedom.

Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: http://open.yale.edu/courses

This course was recorded in Fall 2007.

MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE

2010-01-07T00:59:00.000+02:00

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

by socratis904

Happy New Year.!!!

2009-12-31T18:27:00.001+02:00