February 28, 2009
February 27, 2009
Култни предмети - Криви Дол
Култни предмети од железното време, изработени од бронза, пронајдени на археолошкиот локалитет Криви Дол, Радање, Штип, Република Македонија
Cult objects made of copper, found at the archeological site Krivi Dol, Radanje, Stip, Republic of Macedonia.
Cult objects made of copper, found at the archeological site Krivi Dol, Radanje, Stip, Republic of Macedonia.
February 26, 2009
Македонски грб од 1515-1650
Германски грбовник 1515-1650. Прва слика - грбови на трите добри пагански кралеви. Лево грб на Александар Македонски - три круни.
Coat of Arms of Alexander the Great - first from left. Three crowns on a shield.
Втора слика - грбови на трите добри пагански кралеви и самите кралеви: Хектор од Троја, Александар Велики и Јулие Цезар.Средина - грб на Александар Македонски - сребрен грифин на црно поле.
Кликнете на сликата за да ја видите во целосен размер!
Coat of Arms of Alexander the Great - second from left. Silver Griphin on black shield
Click on the image to see in full size!
February 25, 2009
Ancient Macedonian Language
Ancient Macedonian Language - a distinct Indo-European language
Macedonia and Greece: Two Ancient and Separate Nations - John Shea 1997 pp.23-35
To get to the real Macedonians we need to start a little before the time of Alexander the Great. If we go too far back, say to the seventh century B.C., we find that Macedon was a tiny little piece of land that no one today would really be interested in. It was an area that could be covered on horseback in a day's ride. Macedon at first included the area immediately east of Lake Kastoria and east and north of the Haliakmon River. Certainly there is little glory to claim from this period of Macedonian history. By the fifth century B.C. the kingdom had been extended eastward to what is now the Struma River, and a century later the Macedonian homeland was extended to include all of the territory West of the Nestos River.' In the time of Philip II and his son, Alexander the Great, the Macedonian homeland was at its largest, and Macedonian power was at its peak. This seems the obvious era in which to begin our enquiry.
Modern Greeks prefer to think of the ancient Macedonians as Greeks. This was part of their justification for taking a part of Macedonia by conquest earlier in this century, and is still used to justify their present international position. Greek arguments frequently focus on the time of Alexander because of his undoubted influence in spreading Hellenic culture to distant parts of the known world. It is clear, too, that they gain some satisfaction from imagining some family connection with that extraordinary figure. However, the modern Greek ideas would have been rejected by both the ancient Macedonians and the ancient Greeks.
If we start by looking at modern Greek discussions of these ideas we can then consider what historians have to say about their arguments, point by point. We get some of the flavor of Greek attitudes in the Greek publication Macedonia, History and Politics (published by George Christopoulos, John Bastias, printed by Ekdotike Athenon S.A. for the Center for Macedonians Abroad, and the Society for Macedonian Studies, 1991). This is a publication available in Greek embassies and distributed to Greek communities and multi-cultural organizations throughout the English-speaking world. The author of this book considers that the use of the Greek language by Macedonians is proof of their Greekness. In passing we might reflect on the modern use of English by many countries as a convenience for trade or war, and note that this usage proves nothing at all about the ethnicity or culture of the users. However, the author of Macedonia, History and Politics claims that the dissemination of the "Greek language and Greek culture throughout the known world by Alexander the Great and his Macedonians provides the most irrefutable confirmation'' of the unity of the Macedonians with the other Greeks.
To explore thoroughly this issue of the proposed Greekness of the Macedonians, we need to consider evidence from a number of quarters. If the early Macedonians were Greek you would expect that (a) there might be clear evidence that the language of the Macedonians was a dialect of Greek, rather than a separate branch of the Indo-European language group; (b) writers of the time would have recognized Macedonians as Greek rather than as foreigners and would have spoken about Macedonia as though it was a part of Hellenism; and (c) historians today would speak of the ancient Macedonians as though they were Greek in ancient times. As we will see, none of these ideas is unequivocally supported.
Linguistic Evidence
In questioning the significance of the use of Greek by the ancient Macedonians we need to sort out some of the linguistic history of the Macedonians. Firstly, the language of the original Macedonians, whatever it was, existed long before Macedonia became a powerful state. This is before the time of the great kings Philip II and Alexander the Great. The name "Macedones" originated many centuries earlier, and probably came from the "real" Macedonian language. If the Macedonian language was recognized as Greek, and understood by Greeks, you would expect that this was the language used by the great Macedonian kings in a formal or legal context. But it was not.
We know with some certainty that Attic Greek, which came from much farther south (around the Athens area) and was being used in other parts of the world as a trade language, was used more and more as the language of state and used also in Alexander's multi-cultural army. No linguist accepts that this language was the original Macedonian. So we have clear evidence that the Greek used by the Macedonians was a new language. Therefore one cannot argue that the use of this language proves any linguistic associations between the original Macedonians and Greeks.
Many scholars have concluded that the ancient Macedonian language was not a Greek dialect and that it was more or less related to the languages of Macedonia's northern neighbors, the Illyrians and the Thracians. These scholars include Muller and Mayer, writing in the nineteenth century, and Thumb, Thumb-Kieckers, Vasmer, Kacarov, Beshevljev, Budimir, Pisani, Russu, Baric, Poghirc, Chantraine, Katicic, and Nerosnak, writing in the twentieth. Here attention will be given to sources more readily accessible to those who want to inquire further.
The problem for modern-day linguists is that not a single sentence of the original Macedonian language has been retained. All that is left are records of proper names and isolated words -which, as historian E. Badian of Harvard University points out, is hardly sufficient basis for judgments about linguistic affinities.' We do know that the Macedonians increasingly came to use a southern form of Greek in their formal dealings. Traian Stoijanovich tells US3 that in the fifth century B.C., the Macedonian rulers abandoned Macedonian and began using Attic Greek for public administration. This did not change the attitudes of the Greeks, who still regarded the Macedonians as barbarians.
However, Stoijanovich says it is not known whether the ancient Macedonian language was an independent language or a Greek dialect into which a non-Hellenic vocabulary and certain other non-Hellenic traits were introduced. Like other historians, he considers it quite possible that Macedonian was the language of the ruling class and that a considerable proportion of the subjects of the Macedonian chiefs spoke other languages.
Peter Hill, author of the section "Macedonians" in the official Australian bicentennial encyclopedia, The Australian People (perhaps 200,000 Macedonians live in Australia), writes:
What is certain is that Alexander's mother tongue was not Greek. Alexander enjoyed a Greek education and adopted Greek as the language of his empire but to claim that that made him Greek is to suggest that the Irish and the Indians are really British because they have adopted English for administrative purposes.
Like Hill, E. Badian refutes the assumptions that a nation is essentially defined by a language and that a common language implies a common nationhood. He argues that this latter idea is patently untrue for the greater part of human history and to a large extent even today. The formal written language of ancient Macedonians was inevitably Greek, as was the case for various other ancient peoples. There was really no alternative. However, this in no way assures good relations between peoples, nor does it necessarily show any consciousness of a common interest. What is of greater historical interest, Badian says, is the documented evidence that Greeks and Macedonians regarded each other as foreign.
The use of the Macedonian language by Alexander's infantry. The Macedonian kings, Philip and Alexander, favored Hellenization and encouraged the use of Attic Greek in their administrations, but the use of this foreign tongue was not foisted upon ordinary Macedonians. Although at least some of Alexander's Greek companions knew the Macedonian language, having come to Macedonia at an early age, Alexander never tried to impose Greek on his Macedonian infantry or to integrate this infantry with Greek units or Greek "foreign" individuals. Alexander's infantry continued to use the Macedonian tongue even late into his Asian expeditions. Badian describes some convincing cases in which Macedonian troops could not follow commands in Greek. For instance, during his argument with Clitus, which led to his good friend's death, at the end Alexander is said to have called for his guards in Macedonian when he felt his life threatened. Badian rejects the idea that this was a reversion to a more primitive part of his psyche, under stress. He prefers the simpler explanation that Alexander used the only language in which his guards could be addressed.
To establish his case, Badian quotes a surviving papyrus fragment that seems to be the only good source to reveal the facts of the infantry use of Macedonian. This fragment tells of a battle, early in 321 B.C., in which the Greek commander Ambiance faced the Macedonian Neoptolemus with his Macedonian phalanx. Wanting to have the Macedonians join him rather than fight him, Ambiance needed to convince them of his superior position. The story continues:
When Eumenues saw the close-locked formation of the Macedonian phalanx ... he sent Xennias once more, a man whose speech was Macedonian, bidding him declare that he would not fight them frontally but would follow them with his cavalry and units of light troops and bar them from provisions.
Badian tells us that Xennias' name reveals him to be a Macedonian. Since he was with Ambiance he was probably a Macedonian of superior status who spoke both standard Greek and his native language. Ambiance needed this interpreter to transmit his message. This means that the phalanx had to be addressed in Macedonian if they were going to understand. Ambiance did not address them himself, although this was the common way for leaders of the time, nor did he send a Greek. Badian concludes that Greek was a foreign tongue to the Macedonians. Similarly, Alexander used Macedonian to address his guards because it was their normal language, and he had to be sure he would be understood. It also seems clear that educated Greeks did not speak the Macedonian language unless (presumably) they had grown up with Macedonians and learned it from their childhood friends, as some of Alexander's Greek companions must have.
Other facts are consistent with this argument. Philip II seems not to have used any Greek commanders for his Macedonian troops. Presumably, the first generation Greek immigrants into his cities had not learned the language. It is also a fact that Ambiance, the commander in the story above, was notorious for the trouble he repeatedly had in getting Macedonian infantry to fight for him, even though he was an able leader. His problem was probably not simply his troops' antagonism to the fact that he was Greek. His problem was that he could not directly communicate with Macedonian soldiers. In the end this defect cost him his life.
Political reasons for the use of the Greek language. Considering the use of Greek as the language of command in Alexander's armies, R.A. Crossland concludes that this development was a matter of administrative efficiency. Although it was the Macedonians who had to learn Greek at first, the same requirement was made of at least some of his Persian troops after many conquests. For a long while Alexander thought that Greek was the best language to use as the common medium of communication among the peoples of his empire, "and not because Macedonian was similar to it." Nevertheless, as we have already noted, even by the latter part of his Asian campaigns, Alexander's infantry still did not speak a Greek language.
In other words, a very important reason for Hellenization of the Macedonians was their new role of political power-broker. The Greek language was available in written form and was widely used throughout the Macedonian sphere of influence. It was a very convenient vehicle for use in creating an international empire, something that both Philip and Alexander hoped to do. Its use may have also have led to some appeasement of Greek hostility towards the dominating Macedonians. All of these are sound reasons for choosing to use the Greek language as the tongue of administration throughout the expanding empire. However, after a time the value of Greek culture to the Macedonians' cause began to fade. Eventually Alexander began to think in terms of a blending of the diverse cultures of his great empire. Perhaps in order to appease his new Persian subjects, it was now the blending of Macedonian and Persian that mattered, rather than the blending of Macedonian and Greek.
Macedonian attitudes to the Greek language. For the most part we have little information on Macedonian attitudes to the Greeks or their language. Badian reminds us that no Macedonian oratory survives, since the language was never a literary one. However, he concludes that the existence on both sides of a feeling that they were "peoples of non-kindred race" is very probable. The language barrier would keep this awareness alive, even though the literary language of educated Macedonians could only be Greek. That fact was as irrelevant to ordinary people, and perhaps even to those of higher status, as was the Hellenization of the Macedonian upper class. Badian gives a more recent example of a similar phenomenon. In eighteenth-century Europe, French language and culture prevailed amongst people of education. In fact, during the early part of the eighteenth century the language and culture of the German royal courts, including that of Frederick the Great in Prussia, were French. Most of the books published in Germany in the first half of the century were in Latin and French! Thus upper-class German ladies might write only in French, yet this did not mean that they were French or even Francophile. Badian suggests that Clitus' anger toward Alexander was representative of a persisting antagonism to Greeks and their ways seen among all classes of Macedonians. He says that these feelings are most clearly evident where the historical record deals with ordinary people, like the Macedonian infantrymen referred to above.
The linguistic character of ancient Macedonia. Arnold Toynbee asserts that the Macedonians of all ancient historical periods spoke Greek. He argues firstly that "they (the Makedones) were already Greek speaking 150 years to 200 years earlier than Augustus' time." This observation would seem to be of little weight in the present discussion since we have already noted the increasing, and deliberately chosen, use of Attic Greek by the Macedonian nobility. The use of a language from a distant location by a limited number of noble families tells us nothing about the native tongue of the Macedonians of the fourth century B.C., the Anglo-Saxons of thirteenth century England, or the Prussians of early eighteenth century Germany.
Nevertheless it is worth looking at Toynbee's point a little further to uncover its internal inconsistencies. Toynbee describes an occasion in 167 B.C. when L. Aemilius Paulus announced in a public speech at Amphipolis the Roman government's decisions for the settlement of continental European Greece. This speech was delivered in Latin, but there was a Greek translation of the speech "for the benefit of Paulus' audience which was drawn from all parts of Greece." From this Toynbee concludes that at this stage the Macedonians were Greek-speaking, since in the public meeting place at Amphipolis, the majority of the listeners must have been Macedonians. Yet Toynbee himself states that the Greek translation was provided because the audience "was drawn from all parts of Greece." However, if we follow Toynbee's line that we are dealing with a diverse group of native Greek speakers, many of whom were Macedonian and who, according to Toynbee, spoke a dialect of Greek that no other Greeks could understand, it is asking a bit much to expect us to believe that these representatives suddenly all understood the same "Greek"- that is, unless the "Greele' that was used was the koine, the international version of Greek developed from Attic, that was widely spoken in this area of the empire at the time. The audience was made up largely of leaders of one kind or another, people who were most likely to speak such a language. It is likely that virtually any trader, businessman, administrator, or political leader of the time would have spoken this language (or would have been in the company of an interpreter who could), as well as his own vernacular and perhaps other trade or administrative languages as well. Thus the translation of Paulus' speech into Greek tells us absolutely nothing about the native language of the Macedonians or of anyone else.
Toynbee presents other arguments based on linguistic analysis to support his contention that the Macedonians were native Greek speakers. He asserts that Macedonian is Greek based on the "Greekness" of the word "Makedones" and its variant "Makednoi," Macedonian place names, the names of the members of the Argead house, all recorded Macedonian personal names, the names of Macedonian from Upper Macedonia, the names of the Upper Macedonian cantons, the names of the Macedonian months, the majority of which he claims as Greek. Though at first glance this kind of analysis seems weighty, the counter-arguments are at least as powerful.
An issue that we have to deal with here is what constitutes a "Greek name." It is generally accepted that Indo-European Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians and others settled in the Balkan Peninsula in the fourth, third, and second millennium B.C. As we will see later in more detail, it has been argued that only 40 to 50 percent of the vocabulary of Greek is Indo-European in origin and that 80 percent of its proper names cannot be explained as Indo-European.9 At least two possibilities might explain the presence of such linguistic forms in ancient Greek. One is that pre-Hellenic cultures were non-Indo-European and that the Greek newcomers adopted many proper names and other words from those peoples. Alternatively, the words might have been introduced by conquerors and settlers from the Levant and from Egypt in the second millennium B.C. In either case it is quite possible that such words came into Macedonian and other Balkan languages in the very same way. Thus both languages might have borrowed from others. If we favor the modern view that the pre-Hellenic influences in Greek are non-Indo-European, and we take into account the observed fact that place names often tend to last through conquest and assimilation, its would be reasonable to assume that some of the supposed "Greek" place names found in the "Macedonian" language are in fact pre-Hellenic names.
It is easy to find modern examples of the same phenomenon. Both France and Germany have many Celtic place names yet do not speak a Celtic language, or even the same language. The people of England are "British," a name based on a Latin word formerly applied to a Celtic-speaking people and now referring to an Anglo-Saxon people. A study of the word "British" does not help us to determine what language the British speak. It is certainly not Latin, yet there is historical evidence about the use of Latin in Britain, the same kind of evidence that is trotted out to prove that the Macedonians were Greek. For instance, since English coins have Latin on them, we might conclude that the British speak Latin, following the argument that it would not make sense to use a language no one could read on such common items. Similarly, many English parish churches have collections of epitaphs in Latin, dating from the Middle Ages. Classicist Andy Fear points out that most of the population of medieval England could not even read English, let alone Latin. Obviously, the significance of surviving Greek texts from Macedonia must be treated with caution. Fear notes, too, that Greek inscriptions from ancient Macedonia are in a mixture of Greek dialects. It is much easier to believe that this could occur if Greek was alien to Macedonia, instead of the common language. If the latter were the case, we might expect to see a consistent form employed.
If we study the month names used in England and France, we can see that they resemble each other. This is not a basis for concluding that French and English are the same language. All one can reasonably conclude is that there has been similar heavy influence across these two languages. To say, for such superficial reasons, that Greek and Macedonian are the same language is to make far too much of a little thing. We must remember also that much of the history about ancient Macedonians that is passed on to us comes through Greek sources, and names are likely to have been shaped into Greek forms for a myriad of reasons, including the likelihood that Greek writers may not have been able to pronounce other tongues. A modern analogy would be to think that France is a German-speaking country because when reading a German textbook one comes across the name "Frankreich" ruled by, say, Karl rather than Charles. It is easy enough to find English forms of foreign place names that look far removed from their native form; Florence for Firenze, and so on.
In his essay "Linguistic Problems of the Balkan Area in Late Prehistoric and Early Classical Periods,"o R.A. Crossland directly addresses the issue of the linguistic character of ancient Macedonian. Crossland points out that the principal languages of the Balkan region in question* appear to have been Illyrian or an Illyrian language group; Thracian or Thraco-Dacian; and Macedonian. When it comes to the language of the Macedonians, Crossland takes a position very different from modern Greek writers. He rejects the idea that the Macedonians and their language were of Mycenaean origin. Then he goes on to consider linguistic and archeological evidence about the possible origins of Macedonian and in so doing directly contradicts Toynbee.
Crossland points out that the territory of the Macedones at the beginning of the fifth century B.C. seems to have lain between Tymphaea in the west, Pelagonia in the north and the river Axius in the east, but so far no category of place-names that we can identify as "Macedonian" has been identified in this area, and no inscription in Greek earlier than the late fourth century B.C. has been found in any part of Macedonia. Thus we have no substantial evidence about the nature of the Macedonian language in the time that it was most exclusively used (before the fifth century B.C.), but neither do we have evidence of any Greek language being in use at that point in history. The use of Greek came later.
Crossland says that the names of Macedonians mentioned in fifth- and fourth-century sources are almost all either certainly or possibly Greek, but he argues that this is not significant, since members of one people often borrow names from another whom they regard as culturally superior. Certainly the Macedonian craze for things Greek, including Greek education for the children of the upper classes, suggests such an attitude.
Next, Crossland points out that the ancient writers of the time gave imprecise information about the language of the Macedonians. None of the ancient Greek writers gives a detailed statement about the language that the Macedones spoke. The limited evidence that remains consists of words preserved by Greek lexicographers, especially Hesychius, from about the fifth century A.D. According to Crossland, these words were listed as "used by the Macedonians" or "used in Macedonia" without any indication of the origins of the words. Crossland also cites several other authorities who confirm his conclusions.
Regarding the ancient writers' capacity to recognize significant linguistic features, Crossland agrees with Toynbee in pointing out that when language and speech seemed very different the ancient writers might have had difficulty in making correct classifications. We do not have an understanding of the details of their systems for classifying language. However, we need to remember that only in very recent times have linguists recognized the many languages that make up the Indo-European group. Crossland says that it is difficult to know whether one group of Greek speakers, say the Athenians, would have been able to recognize really different dialects of Greek, or whether they would have been influenced by differences of culture to classify such dialects as barbarian.
Crossland says that the evidence available is too sparse and unsatisfactory to tell us conclusively whether Macedonian was a dialect of Greek or a distinct language. He notes that another authority, N. Hammond, has actually concluded that Macedonian was a dialect of Greek, based on interpretations of information in ancient sources about the status and use of Macedonian under Alexander the Great and his successors. However, Crossland is skeptical of Hammond's reasoning and says that better evidence would come from comparative linguistic study.
Crossland says that two kinds of evidence would help us to conclude that Macedonian was a dialect of Greek. Firstly, we would have to be able to observe or reconstruct its sound system and morphology in a way that would reveal any similarities to recognized ancient Greek dialects, and any contrasts to other Indo-European languages. Secondly, we would have to know whether speakers of most of those Greek dialects could understand and be understood by Macedonians. But none of the necessary evidence is available. The lexical items thought to be Macedonian are too few and uncertain for any useful reconstructions of the language's sound system or morphology, and no Greek writer of the fifth or fourth century B.C. states explicitly whether Greek speakers such as the Athenians could understand the native speech of the Macedonians. Crossland says that these Greeks seemed to have had no difficulty in communicating with the Macedonian court, but this is probably because the royal family of Macedonia, and perhaps most of the nobility, spoke Attic Greek fluently. At home with their families or with their own clansmen they probably used their native tongue, Crossland believes.
We do not know either what form of "international" Greek speech might have been used in Macedonia since there are no substantial inscriptions in Greek from Macedonia earlier than the third century. The Greek speech used might have been Attic or an early form of the koine deriving from it that was already spoken even more widely in the Balkans before Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire.
The information about supposedly Macedonian words given by ancient lexicographers may not be very reliable. Along with words that were a part of the real Macedonian tongue in the fourth century B.C., they might have listed words and usages typical of the variety of Greek that was used in Macedonia from the third century onwards. They may also have included words that were special to the Macedonian armies. Some Greeks in the early Hellenistic period may even have regarded as Macedonian words that belonged to the koine as a whole, but not to Attic. We have no way of knowing the underlying basis for classifying words as belonging to one language or another.
Crossland is very critical of Kalleris, a Greek writer who tries to make a case from a linguistics standpoint for Macedonian being a Greek dialect. It is worth looking at this material in detail because of its apparent thoroughness, and because of its relevance to Toynbee's arguments.
In an examination of the 153 words that are described as Macedonian in ancient sources, Kalleris considers that well over three-quarters of these words are Greek. Crossland finds this quite unconvincing. First, he says, a third of these words have no satisfactory etymology. Second, he says that a further 44 items should be disregarded as being false forms in the sources from which they came. They are simply adjectives of Greek formation based on place-names. Although these words seem to be Indo-European, they could belong to an Indo-European language other than Greek. Some of them might be military or technical terms which are Attic in form and were borrowed from Attic Greek in the fifth or fourth century.
Third, Crossland argues, if Macedonian was a dialect of Greek it is extremely unlikely that it would have been similar to Attic Greek. The original Macedonians did not come from the area of Athens and share no history with the Athenians. This means that the Attic words are a false lead, just late borrowings from Greek. It would be much more convincing, perhaps crucial, to find Macedonian words that were not specifically Attic but which occurred either in a considerable number of Greek dialects or in some of the dialects that were spoken in areas adjacent to Macedonia. Kalleris gives fifty-one words of this kind. Many of these words occur in Doric or other West Greek dialects or resemble words in these dialects. However, it is quite possible that these words were borrowed from West Greek dialects or from Thessalian, particularly since all except eighteen of them are the sort of words which the Macedonians might well have borrowed from their neighbors. They include titles of gods, names of festivals and months of the year, military terms, and names of objects that they might have learnt from neighbors to make and use. Such words are often borrowed from neighboring groups, so their existence in Macedonia is not convincing evidence that they were originally Macedonian.
Fourth, the remaining eighteen words, none of which corresponds exactly in meaning or form with Greek words, seem insufficient to make a case for classifying Macedonian as Greek. Once again there is the possibility that the words were borrowed from neighbors. At the western and southern borders of Macedonia were tribes speaking different Greek dialects, and we know that the Macedonians were in contact with these peoples. The Thessalians to the south are particularly likely to have been influential since they were culturally and politically more advanced than the Macedonians before the fifth century. They are likely to have influenced the Macedonians particularly strongly until the growth of Athenian influence. Herodotus reports on traditions in the same period of close contact between the Macedonians and the Dorians before the latter were supposed to have migrated southward.
Finally, though again it is hardly sufficient basis for any conclusion, there is one language feature evident in the surviving "Macedonian" words that points to the idea of a separate language. Macedonian seems to have had a phonological feature that marks it as different from Greek dialects. This is the correspondence of a sound written with B, to Ph in Greek. For instance, this would appear as something like Bilippos in Macedonian, and Philippos in Greek. Crossland says that this change puts Macedonian closer in phonology to Illyrian and Thracian than to Greek, but it does not mean that Macedonian was a dialect of either language.
Crossland is not convinced by claims that comments from writers such as Arrian and Plutarch in the first to second centuries A.D. (e.g. Plutarch, Ant. 27) show that Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek as their native tongue. He says they are inconclusive since the expressions used are vague and might be referring to a "Macedonian style" rather than a "Macedonian language" or "dialect." These descriptions would be just as likely if Macedonian was a distinct language as they would be if it was a dialect of Greek. Crossland points out that it is possible that Macedonian kings and their courts, soldiers and colonists might have continued to speak a second language in their homes and among themselves for some generations even though they spoke Greek for most practical purposes. After all, it is easy to think of examples of this kind of thing in more modern times. Crossland notes that Gaelic was used alongside English for generations by Scots who emigrated to America. It is still used in this way in some small communities in North America. Similarly, although English was used as the language of command and administration in British army regiments recruited predominantly in Wales, the Welsh language was still used privately.
Like historians who have examined this question, Crossland suggests that Alexander may have required Macedonians in his armies to use Greek as the language of command, just as he required many Persians to learn it (Plut. Alex. 43.7), because it was efficient, and because he thought it the language best suited to serve as the common medium of communication among the peoples of his empire. This kind of strategic decision does not require that Macedonian should have been similar to the new "international" language.
In summing up, Crossland says again that the evidence does not indicate convincingly that Macedonian was a dialect of Greek rather than a separate Indo-European language. Even Toynbee, who is persuaded in the opposite direction by the very flimsy evidence we have considered above emphasizes that the evidence is "fragmentary, ... confused and self-contradictory." In practical terms this suggests that modern Greeks may have to look elsewhere for convincing evidence that ancient Macedonians were Greek.
Macedonia and Greece: Two Ancient and Separate Nations - John Shea 1997 pp.23-35
To get to the real Macedonians we need to start a little before the time of Alexander the Great. If we go too far back, say to the seventh century B.C., we find that Macedon was a tiny little piece of land that no one today would really be interested in. It was an area that could be covered on horseback in a day's ride. Macedon at first included the area immediately east of Lake Kastoria and east and north of the Haliakmon River. Certainly there is little glory to claim from this period of Macedonian history. By the fifth century B.C. the kingdom had been extended eastward to what is now the Struma River, and a century later the Macedonian homeland was extended to include all of the territory West of the Nestos River.' In the time of Philip II and his son, Alexander the Great, the Macedonian homeland was at its largest, and Macedonian power was at its peak. This seems the obvious era in which to begin our enquiry.
Modern Greeks prefer to think of the ancient Macedonians as Greeks. This was part of their justification for taking a part of Macedonia by conquest earlier in this century, and is still used to justify their present international position. Greek arguments frequently focus on the time of Alexander because of his undoubted influence in spreading Hellenic culture to distant parts of the known world. It is clear, too, that they gain some satisfaction from imagining some family connection with that extraordinary figure. However, the modern Greek ideas would have been rejected by both the ancient Macedonians and the ancient Greeks.
If we start by looking at modern Greek discussions of these ideas we can then consider what historians have to say about their arguments, point by point. We get some of the flavor of Greek attitudes in the Greek publication Macedonia, History and Politics (published by George Christopoulos, John Bastias, printed by Ekdotike Athenon S.A. for the Center for Macedonians Abroad, and the Society for Macedonian Studies, 1991). This is a publication available in Greek embassies and distributed to Greek communities and multi-cultural organizations throughout the English-speaking world. The author of this book considers that the use of the Greek language by Macedonians is proof of their Greekness. In passing we might reflect on the modern use of English by many countries as a convenience for trade or war, and note that this usage proves nothing at all about the ethnicity or culture of the users. However, the author of Macedonia, History and Politics claims that the dissemination of the "Greek language and Greek culture throughout the known world by Alexander the Great and his Macedonians provides the most irrefutable confirmation'' of the unity of the Macedonians with the other Greeks.
To explore thoroughly this issue of the proposed Greekness of the Macedonians, we need to consider evidence from a number of quarters. If the early Macedonians were Greek you would expect that (a) there might be clear evidence that the language of the Macedonians was a dialect of Greek, rather than a separate branch of the Indo-European language group; (b) writers of the time would have recognized Macedonians as Greek rather than as foreigners and would have spoken about Macedonia as though it was a part of Hellenism; and (c) historians today would speak of the ancient Macedonians as though they were Greek in ancient times. As we will see, none of these ideas is unequivocally supported.
Linguistic Evidence
In questioning the significance of the use of Greek by the ancient Macedonians we need to sort out some of the linguistic history of the Macedonians. Firstly, the language of the original Macedonians, whatever it was, existed long before Macedonia became a powerful state. This is before the time of the great kings Philip II and Alexander the Great. The name "Macedones" originated many centuries earlier, and probably came from the "real" Macedonian language. If the Macedonian language was recognized as Greek, and understood by Greeks, you would expect that this was the language used by the great Macedonian kings in a formal or legal context. But it was not.
We know with some certainty that Attic Greek, which came from much farther south (around the Athens area) and was being used in other parts of the world as a trade language, was used more and more as the language of state and used also in Alexander's multi-cultural army. No linguist accepts that this language was the original Macedonian. So we have clear evidence that the Greek used by the Macedonians was a new language. Therefore one cannot argue that the use of this language proves any linguistic associations between the original Macedonians and Greeks.
Many scholars have concluded that the ancient Macedonian language was not a Greek dialect and that it was more or less related to the languages of Macedonia's northern neighbors, the Illyrians and the Thracians. These scholars include Muller and Mayer, writing in the nineteenth century, and Thumb, Thumb-Kieckers, Vasmer, Kacarov, Beshevljev, Budimir, Pisani, Russu, Baric, Poghirc, Chantraine, Katicic, and Nerosnak, writing in the twentieth. Here attention will be given to sources more readily accessible to those who want to inquire further.
The problem for modern-day linguists is that not a single sentence of the original Macedonian language has been retained. All that is left are records of proper names and isolated words -which, as historian E. Badian of Harvard University points out, is hardly sufficient basis for judgments about linguistic affinities.' We do know that the Macedonians increasingly came to use a southern form of Greek in their formal dealings. Traian Stoijanovich tells US3 that in the fifth century B.C., the Macedonian rulers abandoned Macedonian and began using Attic Greek for public administration. This did not change the attitudes of the Greeks, who still regarded the Macedonians as barbarians.
However, Stoijanovich says it is not known whether the ancient Macedonian language was an independent language or a Greek dialect into which a non-Hellenic vocabulary and certain other non-Hellenic traits were introduced. Like other historians, he considers it quite possible that Macedonian was the language of the ruling class and that a considerable proportion of the subjects of the Macedonian chiefs spoke other languages.
Peter Hill, author of the section "Macedonians" in the official Australian bicentennial encyclopedia, The Australian People (perhaps 200,000 Macedonians live in Australia), writes:
What is certain is that Alexander's mother tongue was not Greek. Alexander enjoyed a Greek education and adopted Greek as the language of his empire but to claim that that made him Greek is to suggest that the Irish and the Indians are really British because they have adopted English for administrative purposes.
Like Hill, E. Badian refutes the assumptions that a nation is essentially defined by a language and that a common language implies a common nationhood. He argues that this latter idea is patently untrue for the greater part of human history and to a large extent even today. The formal written language of ancient Macedonians was inevitably Greek, as was the case for various other ancient peoples. There was really no alternative. However, this in no way assures good relations between peoples, nor does it necessarily show any consciousness of a common interest. What is of greater historical interest, Badian says, is the documented evidence that Greeks and Macedonians regarded each other as foreign.
The use of the Macedonian language by Alexander's infantry. The Macedonian kings, Philip and Alexander, favored Hellenization and encouraged the use of Attic Greek in their administrations, but the use of this foreign tongue was not foisted upon ordinary Macedonians. Although at least some of Alexander's Greek companions knew the Macedonian language, having come to Macedonia at an early age, Alexander never tried to impose Greek on his Macedonian infantry or to integrate this infantry with Greek units or Greek "foreign" individuals. Alexander's infantry continued to use the Macedonian tongue even late into his Asian expeditions. Badian describes some convincing cases in which Macedonian troops could not follow commands in Greek. For instance, during his argument with Clitus, which led to his good friend's death, at the end Alexander is said to have called for his guards in Macedonian when he felt his life threatened. Badian rejects the idea that this was a reversion to a more primitive part of his psyche, under stress. He prefers the simpler explanation that Alexander used the only language in which his guards could be addressed.
To establish his case, Badian quotes a surviving papyrus fragment that seems to be the only good source to reveal the facts of the infantry use of Macedonian. This fragment tells of a battle, early in 321 B.C., in which the Greek commander Ambiance faced the Macedonian Neoptolemus with his Macedonian phalanx. Wanting to have the Macedonians join him rather than fight him, Ambiance needed to convince them of his superior position. The story continues:
When Eumenues saw the close-locked formation of the Macedonian phalanx ... he sent Xennias once more, a man whose speech was Macedonian, bidding him declare that he would not fight them frontally but would follow them with his cavalry and units of light troops and bar them from provisions.
Badian tells us that Xennias' name reveals him to be a Macedonian. Since he was with Ambiance he was probably a Macedonian of superior status who spoke both standard Greek and his native language. Ambiance needed this interpreter to transmit his message. This means that the phalanx had to be addressed in Macedonian if they were going to understand. Ambiance did not address them himself, although this was the common way for leaders of the time, nor did he send a Greek. Badian concludes that Greek was a foreign tongue to the Macedonians. Similarly, Alexander used Macedonian to address his guards because it was their normal language, and he had to be sure he would be understood. It also seems clear that educated Greeks did not speak the Macedonian language unless (presumably) they had grown up with Macedonians and learned it from their childhood friends, as some of Alexander's Greek companions must have.
Other facts are consistent with this argument. Philip II seems not to have used any Greek commanders for his Macedonian troops. Presumably, the first generation Greek immigrants into his cities had not learned the language. It is also a fact that Ambiance, the commander in the story above, was notorious for the trouble he repeatedly had in getting Macedonian infantry to fight for him, even though he was an able leader. His problem was probably not simply his troops' antagonism to the fact that he was Greek. His problem was that he could not directly communicate with Macedonian soldiers. In the end this defect cost him his life.
Political reasons for the use of the Greek language. Considering the use of Greek as the language of command in Alexander's armies, R.A. Crossland concludes that this development was a matter of administrative efficiency. Although it was the Macedonians who had to learn Greek at first, the same requirement was made of at least some of his Persian troops after many conquests. For a long while Alexander thought that Greek was the best language to use as the common medium of communication among the peoples of his empire, "and not because Macedonian was similar to it." Nevertheless, as we have already noted, even by the latter part of his Asian campaigns, Alexander's infantry still did not speak a Greek language.
In other words, a very important reason for Hellenization of the Macedonians was their new role of political power-broker. The Greek language was available in written form and was widely used throughout the Macedonian sphere of influence. It was a very convenient vehicle for use in creating an international empire, something that both Philip and Alexander hoped to do. Its use may have also have led to some appeasement of Greek hostility towards the dominating Macedonians. All of these are sound reasons for choosing to use the Greek language as the tongue of administration throughout the expanding empire. However, after a time the value of Greek culture to the Macedonians' cause began to fade. Eventually Alexander began to think in terms of a blending of the diverse cultures of his great empire. Perhaps in order to appease his new Persian subjects, it was now the blending of Macedonian and Persian that mattered, rather than the blending of Macedonian and Greek.
Macedonian attitudes to the Greek language. For the most part we have little information on Macedonian attitudes to the Greeks or their language. Badian reminds us that no Macedonian oratory survives, since the language was never a literary one. However, he concludes that the existence on both sides of a feeling that they were "peoples of non-kindred race" is very probable. The language barrier would keep this awareness alive, even though the literary language of educated Macedonians could only be Greek. That fact was as irrelevant to ordinary people, and perhaps even to those of higher status, as was the Hellenization of the Macedonian upper class. Badian gives a more recent example of a similar phenomenon. In eighteenth-century Europe, French language and culture prevailed amongst people of education. In fact, during the early part of the eighteenth century the language and culture of the German royal courts, including that of Frederick the Great in Prussia, were French. Most of the books published in Germany in the first half of the century were in Latin and French! Thus upper-class German ladies might write only in French, yet this did not mean that they were French or even Francophile. Badian suggests that Clitus' anger toward Alexander was representative of a persisting antagonism to Greeks and their ways seen among all classes of Macedonians. He says that these feelings are most clearly evident where the historical record deals with ordinary people, like the Macedonian infantrymen referred to above.
The linguistic character of ancient Macedonia. Arnold Toynbee asserts that the Macedonians of all ancient historical periods spoke Greek. He argues firstly that "they (the Makedones) were already Greek speaking 150 years to 200 years earlier than Augustus' time." This observation would seem to be of little weight in the present discussion since we have already noted the increasing, and deliberately chosen, use of Attic Greek by the Macedonian nobility. The use of a language from a distant location by a limited number of noble families tells us nothing about the native tongue of the Macedonians of the fourth century B.C., the Anglo-Saxons of thirteenth century England, or the Prussians of early eighteenth century Germany.
Nevertheless it is worth looking at Toynbee's point a little further to uncover its internal inconsistencies. Toynbee describes an occasion in 167 B.C. when L. Aemilius Paulus announced in a public speech at Amphipolis the Roman government's decisions for the settlement of continental European Greece. This speech was delivered in Latin, but there was a Greek translation of the speech "for the benefit of Paulus' audience which was drawn from all parts of Greece." From this Toynbee concludes that at this stage the Macedonians were Greek-speaking, since in the public meeting place at Amphipolis, the majority of the listeners must have been Macedonians. Yet Toynbee himself states that the Greek translation was provided because the audience "was drawn from all parts of Greece." However, if we follow Toynbee's line that we are dealing with a diverse group of native Greek speakers, many of whom were Macedonian and who, according to Toynbee, spoke a dialect of Greek that no other Greeks could understand, it is asking a bit much to expect us to believe that these representatives suddenly all understood the same "Greek"- that is, unless the "Greele' that was used was the koine, the international version of Greek developed from Attic, that was widely spoken in this area of the empire at the time. The audience was made up largely of leaders of one kind or another, people who were most likely to speak such a language. It is likely that virtually any trader, businessman, administrator, or political leader of the time would have spoken this language (or would have been in the company of an interpreter who could), as well as his own vernacular and perhaps other trade or administrative languages as well. Thus the translation of Paulus' speech into Greek tells us absolutely nothing about the native language of the Macedonians or of anyone else.
Toynbee presents other arguments based on linguistic analysis to support his contention that the Macedonians were native Greek speakers. He asserts that Macedonian is Greek based on the "Greekness" of the word "Makedones" and its variant "Makednoi," Macedonian place names, the names of the members of the Argead house, all recorded Macedonian personal names, the names of Macedonian from Upper Macedonia, the names of the Upper Macedonian cantons, the names of the Macedonian months, the majority of which he claims as Greek. Though at first glance this kind of analysis seems weighty, the counter-arguments are at least as powerful.
An issue that we have to deal with here is what constitutes a "Greek name." It is generally accepted that Indo-European Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians and others settled in the Balkan Peninsula in the fourth, third, and second millennium B.C. As we will see later in more detail, it has been argued that only 40 to 50 percent of the vocabulary of Greek is Indo-European in origin and that 80 percent of its proper names cannot be explained as Indo-European.9 At least two possibilities might explain the presence of such linguistic forms in ancient Greek. One is that pre-Hellenic cultures were non-Indo-European and that the Greek newcomers adopted many proper names and other words from those peoples. Alternatively, the words might have been introduced by conquerors and settlers from the Levant and from Egypt in the second millennium B.C. In either case it is quite possible that such words came into Macedonian and other Balkan languages in the very same way. Thus both languages might have borrowed from others. If we favor the modern view that the pre-Hellenic influences in Greek are non-Indo-European, and we take into account the observed fact that place names often tend to last through conquest and assimilation, its would be reasonable to assume that some of the supposed "Greek" place names found in the "Macedonian" language are in fact pre-Hellenic names.
It is easy to find modern examples of the same phenomenon. Both France and Germany have many Celtic place names yet do not speak a Celtic language, or even the same language. The people of England are "British," a name based on a Latin word formerly applied to a Celtic-speaking people and now referring to an Anglo-Saxon people. A study of the word "British" does not help us to determine what language the British speak. It is certainly not Latin, yet there is historical evidence about the use of Latin in Britain, the same kind of evidence that is trotted out to prove that the Macedonians were Greek. For instance, since English coins have Latin on them, we might conclude that the British speak Latin, following the argument that it would not make sense to use a language no one could read on such common items. Similarly, many English parish churches have collections of epitaphs in Latin, dating from the Middle Ages. Classicist Andy Fear points out that most of the population of medieval England could not even read English, let alone Latin. Obviously, the significance of surviving Greek texts from Macedonia must be treated with caution. Fear notes, too, that Greek inscriptions from ancient Macedonia are in a mixture of Greek dialects. It is much easier to believe that this could occur if Greek was alien to Macedonia, instead of the common language. If the latter were the case, we might expect to see a consistent form employed.
If we study the month names used in England and France, we can see that they resemble each other. This is not a basis for concluding that French and English are the same language. All one can reasonably conclude is that there has been similar heavy influence across these two languages. To say, for such superficial reasons, that Greek and Macedonian are the same language is to make far too much of a little thing. We must remember also that much of the history about ancient Macedonians that is passed on to us comes through Greek sources, and names are likely to have been shaped into Greek forms for a myriad of reasons, including the likelihood that Greek writers may not have been able to pronounce other tongues. A modern analogy would be to think that France is a German-speaking country because when reading a German textbook one comes across the name "Frankreich" ruled by, say, Karl rather than Charles. It is easy enough to find English forms of foreign place names that look far removed from their native form; Florence for Firenze, and so on.
In his essay "Linguistic Problems of the Balkan Area in Late Prehistoric and Early Classical Periods,"o R.A. Crossland directly addresses the issue of the linguistic character of ancient Macedonian. Crossland points out that the principal languages of the Balkan region in question* appear to have been Illyrian or an Illyrian language group; Thracian or Thraco-Dacian; and Macedonian. When it comes to the language of the Macedonians, Crossland takes a position very different from modern Greek writers. He rejects the idea that the Macedonians and their language were of Mycenaean origin. Then he goes on to consider linguistic and archeological evidence about the possible origins of Macedonian and in so doing directly contradicts Toynbee.
Crossland points out that the territory of the Macedones at the beginning of the fifth century B.C. seems to have lain between Tymphaea in the west, Pelagonia in the north and the river Axius in the east, but so far no category of place-names that we can identify as "Macedonian" has been identified in this area, and no inscription in Greek earlier than the late fourth century B.C. has been found in any part of Macedonia. Thus we have no substantial evidence about the nature of the Macedonian language in the time that it was most exclusively used (before the fifth century B.C.), but neither do we have evidence of any Greek language being in use at that point in history. The use of Greek came later.
Crossland says that the names of Macedonians mentioned in fifth- and fourth-century sources are almost all either certainly or possibly Greek, but he argues that this is not significant, since members of one people often borrow names from another whom they regard as culturally superior. Certainly the Macedonian craze for things Greek, including Greek education for the children of the upper classes, suggests such an attitude.
Next, Crossland points out that the ancient writers of the time gave imprecise information about the language of the Macedonians. None of the ancient Greek writers gives a detailed statement about the language that the Macedones spoke. The limited evidence that remains consists of words preserved by Greek lexicographers, especially Hesychius, from about the fifth century A.D. According to Crossland, these words were listed as "used by the Macedonians" or "used in Macedonia" without any indication of the origins of the words. Crossland also cites several other authorities who confirm his conclusions.
Regarding the ancient writers' capacity to recognize significant linguistic features, Crossland agrees with Toynbee in pointing out that when language and speech seemed very different the ancient writers might have had difficulty in making correct classifications. We do not have an understanding of the details of their systems for classifying language. However, we need to remember that only in very recent times have linguists recognized the many languages that make up the Indo-European group. Crossland says that it is difficult to know whether one group of Greek speakers, say the Athenians, would have been able to recognize really different dialects of Greek, or whether they would have been influenced by differences of culture to classify such dialects as barbarian.
Crossland says that the evidence available is too sparse and unsatisfactory to tell us conclusively whether Macedonian was a dialect of Greek or a distinct language. He notes that another authority, N. Hammond, has actually concluded that Macedonian was a dialect of Greek, based on interpretations of information in ancient sources about the status and use of Macedonian under Alexander the Great and his successors. However, Crossland is skeptical of Hammond's reasoning and says that better evidence would come from comparative linguistic study.
Crossland says that two kinds of evidence would help us to conclude that Macedonian was a dialect of Greek. Firstly, we would have to be able to observe or reconstruct its sound system and morphology in a way that would reveal any similarities to recognized ancient Greek dialects, and any contrasts to other Indo-European languages. Secondly, we would have to know whether speakers of most of those Greek dialects could understand and be understood by Macedonians. But none of the necessary evidence is available. The lexical items thought to be Macedonian are too few and uncertain for any useful reconstructions of the language's sound system or morphology, and no Greek writer of the fifth or fourth century B.C. states explicitly whether Greek speakers such as the Athenians could understand the native speech of the Macedonians. Crossland says that these Greeks seemed to have had no difficulty in communicating with the Macedonian court, but this is probably because the royal family of Macedonia, and perhaps most of the nobility, spoke Attic Greek fluently. At home with their families or with their own clansmen they probably used their native tongue, Crossland believes.
We do not know either what form of "international" Greek speech might have been used in Macedonia since there are no substantial inscriptions in Greek from Macedonia earlier than the third century. The Greek speech used might have been Attic or an early form of the koine deriving from it that was already spoken even more widely in the Balkans before Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire.
The information about supposedly Macedonian words given by ancient lexicographers may not be very reliable. Along with words that were a part of the real Macedonian tongue in the fourth century B.C., they might have listed words and usages typical of the variety of Greek that was used in Macedonia from the third century onwards. They may also have included words that were special to the Macedonian armies. Some Greeks in the early Hellenistic period may even have regarded as Macedonian words that belonged to the koine as a whole, but not to Attic. We have no way of knowing the underlying basis for classifying words as belonging to one language or another.
Crossland is very critical of Kalleris, a Greek writer who tries to make a case from a linguistics standpoint for Macedonian being a Greek dialect. It is worth looking at this material in detail because of its apparent thoroughness, and because of its relevance to Toynbee's arguments.
In an examination of the 153 words that are described as Macedonian in ancient sources, Kalleris considers that well over three-quarters of these words are Greek. Crossland finds this quite unconvincing. First, he says, a third of these words have no satisfactory etymology. Second, he says that a further 44 items should be disregarded as being false forms in the sources from which they came. They are simply adjectives of Greek formation based on place-names. Although these words seem to be Indo-European, they could belong to an Indo-European language other than Greek. Some of them might be military or technical terms which are Attic in form and were borrowed from Attic Greek in the fifth or fourth century.
Third, Crossland argues, if Macedonian was a dialect of Greek it is extremely unlikely that it would have been similar to Attic Greek. The original Macedonians did not come from the area of Athens and share no history with the Athenians. This means that the Attic words are a false lead, just late borrowings from Greek. It would be much more convincing, perhaps crucial, to find Macedonian words that were not specifically Attic but which occurred either in a considerable number of Greek dialects or in some of the dialects that were spoken in areas adjacent to Macedonia. Kalleris gives fifty-one words of this kind. Many of these words occur in Doric or other West Greek dialects or resemble words in these dialects. However, it is quite possible that these words were borrowed from West Greek dialects or from Thessalian, particularly since all except eighteen of them are the sort of words which the Macedonians might well have borrowed from their neighbors. They include titles of gods, names of festivals and months of the year, military terms, and names of objects that they might have learnt from neighbors to make and use. Such words are often borrowed from neighboring groups, so their existence in Macedonia is not convincing evidence that they were originally Macedonian.
Fourth, the remaining eighteen words, none of which corresponds exactly in meaning or form with Greek words, seem insufficient to make a case for classifying Macedonian as Greek. Once again there is the possibility that the words were borrowed from neighbors. At the western and southern borders of Macedonia were tribes speaking different Greek dialects, and we know that the Macedonians were in contact with these peoples. The Thessalians to the south are particularly likely to have been influential since they were culturally and politically more advanced than the Macedonians before the fifth century. They are likely to have influenced the Macedonians particularly strongly until the growth of Athenian influence. Herodotus reports on traditions in the same period of close contact between the Macedonians and the Dorians before the latter were supposed to have migrated southward.
Finally, though again it is hardly sufficient basis for any conclusion, there is one language feature evident in the surviving "Macedonian" words that points to the idea of a separate language. Macedonian seems to have had a phonological feature that marks it as different from Greek dialects. This is the correspondence of a sound written with B, to Ph in Greek. For instance, this would appear as something like Bilippos in Macedonian, and Philippos in Greek. Crossland says that this change puts Macedonian closer in phonology to Illyrian and Thracian than to Greek, but it does not mean that Macedonian was a dialect of either language.
Crossland is not convinced by claims that comments from writers such as Arrian and Plutarch in the first to second centuries A.D. (e.g. Plutarch, Ant. 27) show that Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek as their native tongue. He says they are inconclusive since the expressions used are vague and might be referring to a "Macedonian style" rather than a "Macedonian language" or "dialect." These descriptions would be just as likely if Macedonian was a distinct language as they would be if it was a dialect of Greek. Crossland points out that it is possible that Macedonian kings and their courts, soldiers and colonists might have continued to speak a second language in their homes and among themselves for some generations even though they spoke Greek for most practical purposes. After all, it is easy to think of examples of this kind of thing in more modern times. Crossland notes that Gaelic was used alongside English for generations by Scots who emigrated to America. It is still used in this way in some small communities in North America. Similarly, although English was used as the language of command and administration in British army regiments recruited predominantly in Wales, the Welsh language was still used privately.
Like historians who have examined this question, Crossland suggests that Alexander may have required Macedonians in his armies to use Greek as the language of command, just as he required many Persians to learn it (Plut. Alex. 43.7), because it was efficient, and because he thought it the language best suited to serve as the common medium of communication among the peoples of his empire. This kind of strategic decision does not require that Macedonian should have been similar to the new "international" language.
In summing up, Crossland says again that the evidence does not indicate convincingly that Macedonian was a dialect of Greek rather than a separate Indo-European language. Even Toynbee, who is persuaded in the opposite direction by the very flimsy evidence we have considered above emphasizes that the evidence is "fragmentary, ... confused and self-contradictory." In practical terms this suggests that modern Greeks may have to look elsewhere for convincing evidence that ancient Macedonians were Greek.
February 24, 2009
February 22, 2009
Coins, Alexander the Great
Тетрадрахма од времето на Александар III Македонски, село Прилепец, Р. Македонија. Херкул (Александар III) / Олимпискиот бог Зевс на трон, со скиптар во едната рака и орел во другата, ΑΛΕΞΑΝ∆ΡΟΥ.
Silver Tetradrachm from the time of Alexander the Great, found at Prilepec, Republic of Macedonia. Hercules clad in Nemean lion scalp (Alexander III) / God Zeus on a throne, ΑΛΕΞΑΝ∆ΡΟΥ.
Златна статира од околу 336-323 п.н.е. Божицата Атина со шлем / Божицата Нике ΑΛΕΞΑΝ∆Ρ[ΟΥ].
Gold stater, 336-323 B.C. Head of Athena right wearing helmet / Nike standing, ΑΛΕΞΑΝ∆Ρ[ΟΥ].
Сребрен монета искована околу 323 п.н.е. во Вавилон во чест на победата на Александар III против Индија. Александар, крунисан од Нике / Коњаник (Александар III ?) против индиски борбен слон.
Silver coin commemorating Alexander's campaigns in India, mint in Babylon around 323 BC. Alexander being crowned by Nike, fully armed and holding Zeus' thunderbolt / Horseman (Alexander III ?), attacking an Indian battle-elephant (Porus ?).
Златна статира од околу 336-323 п.н.е. Божицата Атина со шлем / грмотевицата на Зевс, лак, боздоган, ΑΛΕΞΑΝ∆ΡΟΥ.
Gold stater, 336-323 B.C. Head of Athena right wearing helmet / Zeus lighting, bow, club, ΑΛΕΞΑΝ∆ΡΟΥ.
Хемидрахма, 336-323 п.н.е. за време на владеењето на Александар III Македонски. Херкул / орел
Hemidrachm, 336-323 BC during the reign of Alexander III of Macedon. Head of young Herakles facing right, wearing knotted lion-skin headdress. / ΑΛΕΞΑΝ-ΔΡΟΥ. Eagle standing right on thunderbolt (?), with closed wings
Бронзена монета, 336-323 п.н.е. за време на владеењето на Александар III Македонски. Македонски штит со грмотевицата на Зевс на него / македонски шлем
Bronze coin, 336-323 BC during the reign of Alexander III of Macedon. Macedonian shield with Zeus' thunderbolt on it / macedonian helmet
Бронзена монета, 336-323 п.н.е. за време на владеењето на Александар III Македонски. Македонски штит со 8 крако македонско сонце / македонски шлем
Bronze coin, 336-323 BC during the reign of Alexander III of Macedon. Macedonian shield with macedonian sun / macedonian helmet
February 21, 2009
Coins, Philip II of Macedon
Тетрадрахма од Амфиполис - 359-336 п.н.е. за време на владеењето на Филип II Македонски, искована во чест на победата на Филип на Олимписките игри во 356 п.н.е. Олимпискиот бог Зевс (Филип II ?) / коњ и коњаник со копје (Александар III Македонски како момче?)
Silver Tetradrachm 359-336 BC made in hounour of Philip II victory at the Olypic Games. Head of god Zeus (Philip II ?) / horse and a horsemen with a spear (Alexander III as a boy?) and the text ФIΛIП ПOY
Златна статира од околу 359-336 п.н.е. oд времето на владеењето на Филип II Македонски. Аполон / кочија, ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ
Gold stater, 359 - 336 B.C. Apolo / chariot, ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ.
Златна статира од околу 359-336 п.н.е. oд времето на владеењето на Филип II Македонски. Аполон / коњ и коњаник
AR 1/5 Tetradrachm, Philip II 359 - 336 B.C. Head of Apollo right, wearing tainia / Youth on horseback right
Златна статира од околу 359-336 п.н.е. oд времето на владеењето на Филип II Македонски. Херкул / лак, боздоган, тризабец, ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ
Gold stater, 359 - 336 B.C. Heracle / bow, Heracles cub, trident, ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ.
Бронзена монета, 359-336 п.н.е. за време на владеењето на Филип II Македонски. Аполон / коњ и коњаник
Bronze coin, 359-336 BC during the reign of Philip II of Macedon. Head of Apollo / horse and a horseman
Виолета Ачковска и Никола Жежов „Предавствата и атентатите во македонската историја“, 2004 година:„Со финанасиската реформа на кралот Филип II во македонската држава била воведена златна монета - статер. Филип е првиот македонски владетел што ковал златни пари. Пуштањето во оптек на златни монети имало големо значење за развитокот на македонската трговија и придонело за економското стабилизирање и издигнување на македонската држава. Македонскиге златни статери биле насекаде барани. Со тоа, биле создадени услови за јакнење и проширување на економското и политичкото влијание на македонската држава и надвор од нејзините граници.“
February 19, 2009
Решение спротивно на правдата
Македонското решение е спротивно на принципите на правдата
Македонското решение е спротивно на принципите на правдата
Македонското решение е спротивно на принципите на правдата
February 18, 2009
За Јордан Пиперката
ЗА ЈОРДАН ПИПЕРКАТА
Ајде пушки пукат, оган горит,
ајде, оган горит од Јордана.
Море, од Јордана Пиперката,
море, од Јордана капидана.
Тој славен јунак од Козица,
тој голем син на Македонија. x2
Ајде, на Јордана бели бечви,
море, бели бечви, бел џамадан.
Јордан ми одит на високо,
пушка ми држи на широко.
Тој славен јунак од Козица,
тој голем син на Македонија. x2
Море, кај што пукнит, се погодит,
ајде, до кај оди душман бегат.
Море најпоеќе спахиине,
море, спахиине, Солунјанине
Тој славен јунак од Козица,
тој голем син на Македонија. x2
Ајде, каде одат аскер водат,
море, од страови Јорданови.
Ајде од Јордана оган гори,
море од Јордана срце боли.
Тој славен јунак од Козица,
тој голем син на Македонија. x2
Јонче Христовски
Ајде пушки пукат, оган горит,
ајде, оган горит од Јордана.
Море, од Јордана Пиперката,
море, од Јордана капидана.
Тој славен јунак од Козица,
тој голем син на Македонија. x2
Ајде, на Јордана бели бечви,
море, бели бечви, бел џамадан.
Јордан ми одит на високо,
пушка ми држи на широко.
Тој славен јунак од Козица,
тој голем син на Македонија. x2
Море, кај што пукнит, се погодит,
ајде, до кај оди душман бегат.
Море најпоеќе спахиине,
море, спахиине, Солунјанине
Тој славен јунак од Козица,
тој голем син на Македонија. x2
Ајде, каде одат аскер водат,
море, од страови Јорданови.
Ајде од Јордана оган гори,
море од Јордана срце боли.
Тој славен јунак од Козица,
тој голем син на Македонија. x2
Јонче Христовски
February 17, 2009
February 16, 2009
Coins, Perdiccas III of Macedon
Античка македонска сребрен диобол на кралот Пердика III. 168-359 п.н.е. Херкул со наметка од лавовска кожа / боздоган, лак, Π-EP
Ancient Macedonian silver diobol of Kings of King Perdikkas III. 368-359 BC. Bearded head of Herakles right, wearing lion skin / Bow and club; Π-EP
Античка македонска сребрен диобол на кралот Пердика III. 168-359 п.н.е. Херкул со наметка од лавовска кожа / боздоган, лак, Π-EPAncient Macedonian silver diobol of Kings of King Perdikkas III. 368-359 BC. Bearded head of Herakles right, wearing lion skin / Bow and club; Π-EP
Античка македонска монета на кралот Пердика III. 168-359 п.н.е. Херкул со наметка од лавовска кожа / PERDIK-KA, лавAncient Macedonian coin of Kings of King Perdikkas III. 368-359 BC. Head of Herakles wearing lion's skin / PERDIK-KA, lion standing right, holding broken javelin in his jaws.
February 15, 2009
February 14, 2009
Coins, Alexander II of Macedon
Античка Македонска монета на кралот Александар II Македонски. Момче / коњ
Ancient Macedonian coin of the king Alexander II. 370 – 368 BC. Young male head right, wearing tainia / Horse prancing right.
Ancient Macedonian coin of the king Alexander II. 370 – 368 BC. Young male head right, wearing tainia / Horse prancing right.
February 13, 2009
Coins, Amynta III of Macedon
Статира, 392-370 п.н.е. за време на владеењето на Аминта III Македонски. Аминта како Херкул / коњ, AMYNTA.
Stater from the reign of the macedonian King Amynta III of Macedon, 392-370 BC. Amynta as Hercules / horse, AMYNTA.
Сребрен диобол, 392-370 п.н.е. за време на владеењето на Аминта III Македонски. Аминта како Херкул / орел.
AR Diobol from the reign of the macedonian King Amynta III of Macedon, 392-370 BC. Head of Herakles right, wearing lion skin / Eagle standing left, head right, within incuse square.
AR Diobol from the reign of the macedonian King Amynta III of Macedon, 392-370 BC. Head of Herakles right, wearing lion skin / Eagle standing left, head right, within incuse square.
Монета, 392-370 п.н.е. за време на владеењето на Аминта III Македонски. Аминта како Херкул / орел, AMYNTA.
Tetrachalkon from the reign of the macedonian King Amynta III of Macedon, 392-370 BC. Head of Herakles right, wearing lion's skin headdress / Eagle standing right devouring serpent, AMYNTA.
Tetrachalkon from the reign of the macedonian King Amynta III of Macedon, 392-370 BC. Head of Herakles right, wearing lion's skin headdress / Eagle standing right devouring serpent, AMYNTA.
February 12, 2009
Македонија да стане независна
Македонија мора да биде ослободена и да стане независна земја
Македонија мора да биде ослободена и да стане независна земја
Македонија мора да биде ослободена и да стане независна земја
February 11, 2009
Автономна управа на Македонија
Бараме политички систем кој ќе и даде автономна управа на Македонија
Бараме политички систем кој ќе и даде автономна управа на Македонија
Бараме политички систем кој ќе и даде автономна управа на Македонија
February 10, 2009
Болен лежи катил Ѓорѓи
БОЛЕН ЛЕЖИ КАТИЛ ЃОРЃИ
Болен лежи катил Ѓорѓи,
в солунски зандани.
Дење лежи катил Ѓорѓи,
ноќе го испитуват. x2
Кажи, кажи катил Ѓорѓи,
кај е твојта пушка?
Кај е твојта пушка Ѓорѓи,
пушка малихерна? x2
Главата си давам душман,
пушка не кажувам.
Пушка не кажувам душман,
пушка малихерна. x2
Александар Сарев
Соња Величкова
Болен лежи катил Ѓорѓи,
в солунски зандани.
Дење лежи катил Ѓорѓи,
ноќе го испитуват. x2
Кажи, кажи катил Ѓорѓи,
кај е твојта пушка?
Кај е твојта пушка Ѓорѓи,
пушка малихерна? x2
Главата си давам душман,
пушка не кажувам.
Пушка не кажувам душман,
пушка малихерна. x2
Александар Сарев
Соња Величкова
February 9, 2009
Coins, Aeropus II of Macedon
Статира, за време на владеењето на Аероп II Македонски. Аполон / коњ, ΑΕΡΟΠΟ.
Stater from the reign of the macedonian King Aeropus II of Macedon, 399-396 BC. Apolo / horse, ΑΕΡΟΠΟ.
Античка македонска бронзена монета на Аерап II Македонски. Глава на момче / волк, ΑΕΡΟΠΟ
Ancient Macedonian bronze coin of the macedonian king Aeropus II of Macedon 399-396 BC. Head with petasos / wolf, ΑΕΡΟΠΟ
February 8, 2009
Варење на изедениот плен
Периодот по поделбата е само варење на изедениот плен
Периодот по поделбата е само варење на изедениот плен
Периодот по поделбата е само варење на изедениот плен
February 6, 2009
Coins, Archelaus I of Macedon
Сребрена статира на Архелај I Македонски. Аполо / [A]PXE—ΛΑ—O, коњ
Silver stater of Archelaus I of Macedon 413 to 399 BC. Head of Apollo right, wearing taenia / [A]PXE—ΛΑ—O, bridled horse walking right, rein looped around neck.
Сребрена статира на Архелај I Македонски. коњ / шлем
Silver stater of Archelaus I of Macedon 413 to 399 BC. Horse prancing left / Crested helmet left, within linear square
Сребрен триобол на Архелај I Македонски. Кована во Еге. Зевс / волк
AR triobol of Archelaus I of Macedon 413 to 399 BC. Bearded head of Herakles right, wearing lion skin / Forepart of wolf right, devouring prey; club above; all within shallow incuse square.
Сребрен обол на Архелај I Македонски. Кована во Еге. Зевс / волк
AR obol of Archelaus I of Macedon 413 to 399 BC. Head of Herakles right, wearing lion skin / Wolf’s head right, club below.
Сребрен хемиобол на Архелај I Македонски. Кована во Еге. Зевс / лав
AR hemiobol of Archelaus I of Macedon 413 to 399 BC. Head of Herakles right, wearing lion skin / Lion’s head right, club above.
Coins, Perdiccas II of Macedon
Сребрен тетробол на македонскиот крал Пердика II, 448-413 п.н.е. Коњ / шлем
Silver tetrobol of the macedonian king Perdiccas II 448-413 B.C. Horse / helmet
Silver tetrobol of the macedonian king Perdiccas II 448-413 B.C. Horse / helmet
Сребрен тетробол на македонскиот крал Пердика II, 448-413 п.н.е. Коњаник со две копја (Пердика II) / предна половина на лав
Silver tetrobol of the macedonian king Perdiccas II 448-413 B.C. Horsеman with two spears / Lion
February 5, 2009
February 4, 2009
Македонско девојче
МАКЕДОНСКО ДЕВОЈЧЕ
Македонско девојче, китка шарена,
во градина набрана, дар подарена.
Дали има на овој бели свет
поубаво девојче од Македонче?
Нема, нема не ќе се роди
поубаво девојче од Македонче.
Нема ѕвезди полични од твојте очи,
да се ноќе на небо ден ќе раздени.
Дали има на овој бели свет
поубаво девојче од Македонче?
Нема, нема не ќе се роди
поубаво девојче од Македонче.
Кога коси расплети како коприна
лична е и полична од самовила.
Дали има на овој бели свет
поубаво девојче од Македонче?
Нема, нема не ќе се роди
поубаво девојче од Македонче.
Кога песна запее славеј натпее,
кога оро заигра срце разигра.
Дали има на овој бели свет
поубаво девојче од Македонче?
Нема, нема не ќе се роди
поубаво девојче од Македонче.
Виолета Томовска и Кирил Манчвски
Влатко Стефановски
Македонско девојче, китка шарена,
во градина набрана, дар подарена.
Дали има на овој бели свет
поубаво девојче од Македонче?
Нема, нема не ќе се роди
поубаво девојче од Македонче.
Нема ѕвезди полични од твојте очи,
да се ноќе на небо ден ќе раздени.
Дали има на овој бели свет
поубаво девојче од Македонче?
Нема, нема не ќе се роди
поубаво девојче од Македонче.
Кога коси расплети како коприна
лична е и полична од самовила.
Дали има на овој бели свет
поубаво девојче од Македонче?
Нема, нема не ќе се роди
поубаво девојче од Македонче.
Кога песна запее славеј натпее,
кога оро заигра срце разигра.
Дали има на овој бели свет
поубаво девојче од Македонче?
Нема, нема не ќе се роди
поубаво девојче од Македонче.
Виолета Томовска и Кирил Манчвски
Влатко Стефановски
February 3, 2009
February 2, 2009
Coins, Alexander I of Macedon
Тетробол од времето на владеење на кралот Александар I Филхелен, 498-454 п.н.е. Коњ / шлем
Tetrobol from the reign of the macedonian king Alexander I Philhelene 498-454 B.C. Horse / helmeted head in square
Tetrobol from the reign of the macedonian king Alexander I Philhelene 498-454 B.C. Horse / helmeted head in square
Диобол од времето на владеење на кралот Александар I Филхелен 498-454 п.н.е. Коњ / шлем
Diobol from the reign of the macedonian king Alexander I Philhelene 498-454 B.C. Horse / helmeted head in square
Mонета, 498-454 п.н.е. за време на владеењето на Александар I Филхелен. Коњ и коњаник со две копја / ΑΛΕΞΑΝ∆ΡΟ.
Coin from the reign of the macedonian King Alexander I of Macedon, 498-454 BC. Horse and a horseman with two spears / ΑΛΕΞΑΝ∆ΡΟ.
Монета од владеењето на Александар I Филхелен, 498-454 B.C. Коњ / Линеарен квадратен симбол.
Silver coin, Alexander I Philhelene, 498-454 BC. Horse / linear quadripartite motif.
February 1, 2009
Гоце Делчев - слики
1, 6 Гоце Делчев - портрет
2 Гоце Делчев со Климент Шапкарев и Ефрем Чучков
3 Ѓорче Петров, Никола Малешевски и Гоце Делчев
4, 5 Гоце Делчев и негов пријател
7 Милан Делчев, брат на Гоце
8 Оплакување на гробот на Гоце Делчев
9 Гоце со комити (назад, втор од десно)
10, 11, 12 Пренесувањето на моштите на Гоце во Скопје, Македонија
13 Гоце Делчев (втор од лево, заден ред) со Михаил Герџиков (трет од лево), баба Дона и група револуционери - Ќустендил, 1902
14 Гоце Делчев (втор маж од лево) на излет со пријатели
Гоце Делчев - цитати
Гоце Делчев - биографија
Delchev's death in NY Times
Гоце Делчев - видео
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)