...Јас доаѓам од Македонија

Извор:  Macedonia> a True Endless Story...

100 places that will change your life - Ohrid

„Големата камена глава“ – легенда за градот Скопје

Некогаш, многу, многу одамна, длабоко во шумите на една Планина, си живееле тројца браќа. Нивниот татко беше посадил по еден јавор за секој од нив, кога тие биле родени. Пред да умре, таткото им кажал на синовите:

„Силата на секој од вас е во неговиот јавор!“

Еден ден најстариот брат им рекол на браќата:

„Чувствувам како да ми дојде мојата сила. Ако го посечам моево јаворово стебло со еден замав на мечот, ќе бидам сигурен во тоа и ќе заминам да си ја барам среќата!“

Мавнал со сета сила, го пресекол стеблото. Утредента се поздравил со браќата, го јавнал коњот, и тргнал да си ја бара среќата.

По некое време, и средниот брат се сторил со снагата. Го викнал најмалото братче сугарче, и му рекол:

„Дојде време и јас да си ја пробам силата! Ако го пресечам мојот јавор со еден удар, ќе појдам да си ја побарам среќата. Ти веќе не си мал, си научил како да живееш сам во шумава. Кога ќе ти дојде тебе твојата сила, пресечи го и ти својот јавор, та појди да си ја бараш среќата, како и ние двајцата што сторивме!“

Мавнал вториот брат со мечот само еднаш: ама колку силно! Јаворот паднал пресечен. Утредента, откако се поздравил со најмалото братче, и тој се качил на коњот, и заминал да си ја бара среќата.

Најмалиот брат си останал да живее сам. Еден ден, после силно невреме, видел како порој носи едно пиле соколово, што беше паднало од гнездото во високите карпи. Откако го извадил од водата, тој онака силен и спретен, лесно се качил до гнездото и го вратил намокреното пиле. Кога дошол дома, почувствувал дека и нему му дошла силата, и дека во жилите му зоврила јуначка крв. Го зел својот меч, излегол во дворот, и таман да мавне, кога од гранката на неговиот јавор го слушнал гласот:

„Немој млад јунаку, не го сечи јаворот!“ Тој се почудил кој зборува, оти во близина немало никој: само еден сокол седнат на гранката од јаворот.

За да ја дочитате легендата, кликнете на следната врска: Историски блог

Желба да ја видат Македонија преродена

ВИКТОР БЕРАР, јуни 1903 год., статија во весникот „Париска ревија“, (La Revue de Paris):

„Додека солунските динамитчии (гемиџиите) со гордост му покажуваат на светот како Македонецот знае да умира, ние одново го чувме целиот угледен печат, сите најголеми министри и политички луѓе како во еден глас викаат дека со своето безумие и жестоко однесување овие разбојници засекогаш ја дискредитираат својата македонска кауза.

Настаните се истражени и пресудата е изречена: Македонците се престапници, јакобинци и убијци! Тие носат „револуционерен жиг“ или, како што тоа денес го велиме, тие се анархисти...

...До скоро Франција не ги познаваше Македонците. Тие за нас беа Трачани, Пеони, Склавини, див и речиси митски народ, кој живее некаде на дното од нам непозната земја.

Ние не ги познававме или ги презиравме, зашто за нив дознавме од пакосните белешки на старите и сегашните Грци.

И, да ја кажеме вистината, ние и сега не ги познаваме Македонците. Погледнете го нашиот секојдневен печат и гледајте какви чудовишни откритија за нив и за нивната земја прават нашите журналисти...

...Амбицијата на една мала држава, егоизмот на една мала нација, не е крајниот идеал на Македонците.

Да се замени турското ропство со грчка, српска или бугарска зависност, за Македонците тоа не би била никаква добивка. Тие себеси се нарекуваат федералисти.

Од друга страна, тие чувствуваат дека Цариград уште долго време ќе биде во рацете на непријателот или дека тој град ќе го прекрати своето турско ропство единствено ако го потчини Русија. Наоѓајќи се среде мали држави, Македонците сакаат и нивната Македонија да послужи како сврзана нишка меѓу различните нации и јазици, а трговијата на градот Солун, мислат тие, ќе ги поврзе во една царинска унија сите интереси на целиот Полуостров...

Затоа не треба да се сомневате во искреноста на македонските комитети кога ни изјавуваат дека тие не мислат на присоединување, ни кон која било од малите балкански држави, туку дека имаат желба да ја видат Македонија преродена...“

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Виктор Берар (1864-1931) е француски политичар, универзитетски професор, научник и балканолог, истражувач на македонското минато. Toj бил професор во Еcole des Hautes еtudes и Еcole supеrieure de Marine, a потоа сенатор и конзул. Како член на француската школа во Атина (L’Ekole franquaise d’Athenes – 1887/90) се заинтересирал за балканските народи кои се наоѓаат под власта на султанот Абдул Хамид II. Објавил повеќе книги со коментари за Источната криза (1875-1881) и за историјата на балканските народи.

Истакнатиот француски балканолог пројавил голем интерес за Македонија, македонското прашање и македонскиот народ. Повеќе трудови на Виктор Бернар се посветени на Македонија, меѓу кои собено значајни се неговите книги „Македонија“ (1897) и „За Македонија“ (1904).

Посебен интерес тој пројавил кон динамитните атентати во Солун („Солунски атентатори“) и за нив напишал прилог во ,,La Revue de Paris“ (јуни 1903).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Виктор Берар, фотографија од 1920 год. пред францускиот Сенат.

Кој ги инспирира настојувањата да се избрише македонското сознание, македонското име

Извор: Антон Попов „Дневник“, Млада Македонија, 1938 година

 

„Беснееја на македонската земја разни господари. Срби, Турци, Грци, Бугари... Тогаш, од македонската нива сите тие береа. До денеска само на еден правото не го признаа. Правото на Македонецот да ја ора својата земја и единствено тој да го бере плодот од својата нива. Стариот господар на таа земја, правото на големиот македонски дух – не беше признат.

Историјата на човештвото е полна со неправди... 

...Кој ги инспирира настојувањата да се избрише македонското сознание, македонското име – да не го признаваат правото на македонскиот народ да биде господар и чувар на својата родна земја?... Кој ги поттикнува нивните свирепи мерки, нивното цврсто решение? Кој ги поддржува и оправдува нивните настојувања – плен на угнетување да бидат нивните славјански браќа?“ 

Wappenbuch, Bayern 1604 - 1604

Wappenbuch, Bayern 1604 - 1604

Restitution of the stolen items?

Scattered heritage

RESTITUTION OF THE STOLEN ITEMS?

A large part of Macedonia's cultural heritage has been destroyed; a small part has been taken out of the country via legitimate or illegitimate purchases, and the biggest part of Macedonia's heritage that's outside of its borders was obtained by robbery, namely by occupying forces during wartime.

The act of robbery is a civilisation-destructive act, and the question of the return (that is, the restitution) of the stolen heritage is a civilisational question. That treasure, besides its exceptional cultural, historical and art value, is an integral part of this people's identity. There are many examples and historical sources that point to illegal taking of incredibly large quantities of culturally significant items from Macedonia, which show a rich cultural and national existence during the Macedonian people's past. However, the Macedonian experience regarding the restitution of the stolen treasures—just as some other countries' experiences (for instance, Greece and Egypt)—suggests that restitution is almost impossible, although there are international conventions that regulate such matters.

The Republic of Macedonia has signed some of those conventions, some of which do not have a retroactive influence (that is, they apply only from the signatory date forward). As consolation, it's worth noting that the largest part of the stolen Macedonian heritage was appropriated during wartime, i.e. during occupations. (For instance, in 1915, the Bulgarian state founded a so-called Macedonian military-inspection area, with headquarters in Skopje and a chief governor, which means that Macedonia was under military rule, i.e. it was treated as an occupied area. According to that, many items were taken to Bulgaria were taken during military rule, as well as during World War II, when Bulgaria again occupied Macedonia. Thus, the items were taken in times when Macedonia wasn't under Turkish rule. Bulgaria has appropriated the items and robbed Macedonia when it proclaimed military rule – and according to international agreements and conventions there is a legitimate basis for asking for their return to the Republic of Macedonia today.)

It is usual that after wars a procedure of reparation and restitution is initiated. That procedure is based on clear legal terms, precisely because it's regulated by international law. But even in such cases experience shows that only rarely are treasures of this kind returned.

A significant amount of Macedonian cultural heritage can also be found in the countries that used to form the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia. Even in the time of former Yugoslavia there were restitution initiatives, but they failed to produce any results, because Macedonian institutions weren't persistent enough in their requests. There were even cases when some Macedonian institutions donated their own pieces in order for some Yugoslavian peoples' cultural history collections to be completed. Those items are now outside Macedonia's borders. There were cases when later the return of donated relics was requested, for instance from Serbia, via reciprocal exchange, but they were unsuccessful.

Macedonian museums and other institutions responsible for the care of cultural heritage, backed by the state of course, still have a responsibility to use their rights and ask for restitution of the stolen treasure – via bilateral agreements (after all, that's why international conventions exist). In fact, some countries don't even allow access to Macedonian scholars for cataloguing or studying, although in some cases studying, copying and presenting certain types of heritage is allowed. Things are hidden simply because they have been stolen. But it should be possible to prove that certain items are from Macedonia, and that they have been stolen. There are many historical documents about it (and they only show that the fate of Macedonian cultural heritage is only a typical part of the pan-Macedonian destiny in the past.) However, before a well-prepared and legally founded procedure is initiated, a complete inventory of the cultural heritage should be made, which should include the scattered heritage. Cultural heritage belongs to all of humanity, but most of all to the people whose ancestors created it.

Caption: Robbery is a civilisation-destructive act, and the restitution of the stolen heritage is a civilisational problem that is not solved in a civilised manner

Nove Cvetanoski

References:

– Ante Popovski: A Voice from the Ancient Past, "Makedonska kniga" Publishing, Skopje, 1985;
– Mihajlo Georgievski: The Fate of Macedonian manuscripts, in the collection Macedonia's Handwritten Heritage, Macedonian Culture Foundation, Skopje, 1998;
– Gjorgji Pop-Atanasov: Dictionary of Old Macedonian Literature, "Makedonska kniga" Publishing, Skopje, 1989;
– Simon Drakul: Arhimandrit Anatolij Zografski, The National History Institute, Skopje, 1988;
– Ilija Velev: Delving Into the Tradition and Continuity, The Macedonian Literature Institute, Skopje, 2000;
– Jovan Ristov: The Archaeological Treasure of Macedonia and Its Protection, in the collection The Archaeological Treasure of Macedonia and Its Protection, Macedonian Culture Foundation, Skopje, 1998;
– Eleonora Petrova: The Alienation and The Illegal Trade of Numismatic Material in the Republic of Macedonia, in the collection The Archaeological Treasure of Macedonia and Its Protection, Macedonian Culture Foundation, Skopje, 1998;
– Dragi Nestorovski: Cultural Heritage and Its Illegal Trade, in the collection The Archaeological Treasure of Macedonia and Its Protection, Macedonian Culture Foundation, Skopje, 1998;
– Pasko Kuzman: Trebeništa's Art, "Gjurgja" Publishing, Skopje, 1997;
– Statements by Mihajlo Georgievski, Zoran Todorovski, Eleonora Petrova and Jovan Ristov, given to this publication's author and used for the series of articles titled "How the Macedonian Cultural Heritage Was Stolen and Where It Was Taken To", published in the „Nova Makedonija“ daily newspaper (October 18th-29th, 1998).

Геноцидот врз Македонците во текот на Македонската борба (1904-1908)

Македонската борба го означува временскиот интервал од 1904 до 1908 год., период непосредно по завршувањето на Илинденското востание од 1903 год., по кое грчката држава одлучила вооружено, со паравоени формации испратени од Kралството Грција да интервенира во делови на османлиска Македонија.

Грчката Македонска борба имала геноциден карактер кон дел од етничкото македонско население. Таа произлегла и се водела од страна на самата грчката држава, со грчко оружје и финансии, со грчки наемници и неформална османлиска согласност, но и помош. Целта на оваа вооружена интервенција, која во најголема мерка била насочена против Македонската револуционерна организација и кон дел од христијанското македонско население, произлегувала од познатата Мегали идеја. Накратко, оваа големодржавна програма предвидувала, покрај останатото, и проширување на грчката држава кон територии во кои немало грчко население или доколку го имало, тоа било во минимални бројки. Прва територија, покрај островот Крит, кон која Грција покажувала територијални аспирации по проширувањето на грчката држава во Тесалија и дел од Епир во 1881 год., била Македонија.

Зошто геноцид? Според основната дефиниција геноцидот е насочен кон целосно и систематско уништување, делумно или целосно, на дадена национална, етничка, расна или религиозна група. Средства за спроведувањето на ваквото дело се: убиство на членовите на соодветната група; предизвикување на тешки оштетувања на здраствената состојба; насилно попречување на нивната репродукција; предизвикување на било какви тешки услови за живот, со цел уништување на групата. Тргнувајќи од овие основни елементи кој го обликуваат геноцидот, најголем дел од истите биле и практикувани во текот на Македонската борба.

Грчката вооружена интервенција во Македонија имала за цел етничко чистење на секој оној кој немало да се декларира како Грк, пред сѐ насочено кон дел од македонското христијанско, албанско и влашко население во османлиска Македонија. Користејќи  православието, а не јазикот - кој не бил во корист на грчката национална идеологија, како критериум за одредување на етничката припадност, грчката пропаганда ги прогласила оние Македонци патријаршисти како дел од грчката нација во Македонија. Оттука, преминувањето на македонското население кон Егзархијата, првенствено словенска црква во која литургијата се изведувала на словенски јазик, преставувала смртна закана за грчките интереси во Македонија. Грчката држава настојувала со помошта на оружјето и заканите со смрт да ги врати Македонците во рамките на Патријаршијата, кој како што видовме во тоа време ја означувала грчкоста на Македонија, доколку тоа не били направено, стапувало на сцена измачувањата, теророт и убиствата на сите оние кои немале на се декларираат како Грци-патријаршисти.

Па така, според член 2 од Уствот на Македонскиот комитет, формиран во Атина во мај 1904 год., стои дека неговата цел била: „одбрана на грцизмот во Македонија, Тракија, Епир и Албанија, и враќање во редовите на Патријаршијата на селата и поединците кои ја напуштиле истата. Јасно станува збор дека изборот бил мал, т.е. и дека не постоел, или си дел од Патријаршијата, односно си Грк, или, пак, си непријател на грцизмот и кон тебе се постапува со сите дозволени и недозволени мерки, а најчест исход била смртта. Во јуни 1904 г. со посебна прокламација Македонскиот комитет го соопштил своето формирање. Документот бил полн со измислици и омраза кон ВМРО и спрема македонското население кое не сакало да ја прифати Патријаршијата како своја црква. На крај од прокламацијата стоело дека Македонскиот комитет ги повикува сите Грци на соработка и помош, а секој оној кој би се покажал индиферентен кон оваа покана, се прогласувал за „недостоен да живее“.

Првите поголеми напади на грчките вооружени чети врз Македонците, со крајен резултат – убиство на недолжно македонско население, се случиле уште во есента 1904 год., а со поголем интензитет и во наредните години. Со добропознатите напади на с. Зеленич (Леринско) од 13 ноември 1904 год., или попзнат како Крвава зеленичка свадба, потоа со нападот на с. Загоричани од 25 март 1905 год, како и за време на нападот на втората крвава свадба во с. Неволјани од октомври 1905 год., биле убиени околу 110 Македонци. Постепено нападите се прошириле и во сите делови на јужна и централна Македонија. А грчките чети во остварување на посочените цели се однесувале се пожестоко и поагресивно кон мирното македонско селско население.

Од пролетта 1905 год. од грчката држава засилено се испраќаат чети во Централна и Источна Македонија. Овие чети требало да го покријат реониуте на Караџова, Негуш, селата од Ѓолот, Воден, Владово, Месимер и Граматиково, Острово. Помали чети пристигнале во Серско, Зрново и Зихна.

Посебно жестоки беа борбите во Ѓолот (Ениџевардарското блато) меѓу грчките андарти и четите на ВМРО предводени од Апостол Петков Терзиев потпомогнати од селското население. Грчките чети обидувајќи се да го обезбедат овој реон вршеле постојани напади како кон четите на Македонската организација, така и врз мирното население, сѐ со цел со помошта на оружјето да ја добијат наклонетоста на населението, т.е. да станат Грци. Андартите во зимата 1906 год. ги нападнале селата Бозоец и Горно Куфалово, во кои биле убиени неколку Македонци и изгорени куќи.

Кратко време по нападот на Загоричани, на пл. Вичо се случило уште едно ладнокрвно убиство на македонско население. Критјанинот и водач на чета Георгиос Макрис, заедно со капетанот Филотас, фатиле 18 селани од с. Блаца и Вишени, кои за Макрис, за да го оправда своето дело, биле комити. Филотас сметал дека селаните не трабло да бидат убиени, но Макрис настојувал на тоа. На крај дошле до соломонско решение – си ги поделиле луѓето, како да станува збор за предмети, и делот на Макрис, девет на број, веднаш биле убиени, додека Филотас ги ослободил неговите.

Посебно со својата суровост кон месното македоноско население се истакнувал поп Дракос, свештено лице кое библијата ја замени со пушка. Од спомените на Макрис дознаваме за еден немилосрден настан во македонското село Либишево (Кастенаријата), во кој учествувал и самиот Дракос. Голема грчка чета влегла во селото по информации на митрополитот Каравангелис, мислејќи дека во него била засолнета четата на месниот војвода на Организацијата, Костанцов. Макрис во спомените вели:

„се доближавме до селото... јас и Вангелис Гаљанос, критјанин и тој капетан, и го донесовме до таму, мислејќи на месен жител кој со закана под оружје мораше да им ја каже куќата. Така ни ја покажа куќата тресејќи се. Веднаш ја заобиколивме – и не требаше да губиме време за да не нѐ видат и избегат. Јас со Вангели стигнавме и чукнавме на портата и тогаш однатре пукаа и пред да успееме да се повлечеме еден куршум ја погоди левата дланка на Вангели... Штом видовме така, ја запаливме куќата од прозорите и од покривот... прскавме партали со нафта, ги запалувавме и го фрлавме во куќата. Во покривот запали оган поп Дракос од задната страна на куќата, каде што немаше ниту порта, ниту прозор, (…)

По кратко време се струши и куќата. Тие беа повлечени во скривницата, како што дознавме потоа, под оџакот на куќата. Куќата беше на една вдовица, која имаше и две деца, едно девојче – 12 годишно и едно машко, постаро. Се задушија сите заедно во скривницата, Констанцов со 7-те негови борци, вдовицата и нејзините деца.

Таму каде што бевме собрани, околу куќата што гореше, дојде некој си и му покажа на поп Дракос еден младич до 20 години, велејќи му дека тој ги водеше во селото чети. Детето во тој момент, кое стоеше до мене и го гледаше како и ние огинот, но кога ги натеравме да копаат на неколку точки околу куќата со замислата да не случајно скривницата е надвор и така да можеме да ги најдеме, во моментот што јас го потурнав и му реков „побрзај да завршуваме и бегаме“, тој се исправи и ми кажа: „еве копам“. Во тој момент ми се приближи поп Дракос и без никој да го забележи пукна во детето и тој падна во дупката што ја копаше. Поп Дракос се повлече набрзина, додека јас ја држев пушката во раце и ми викна: „браво Макри, браво Макри. Така да ги убиваш предавниците, затоа што тие носат внатре во селото чети“. Јас не одговорив. И подоцна ми објасни, бидејќи тој е поп, не сакаше да изгледа дека тој го уби и ме замоли да кажам јас го сторив тоа (…). Неделата утрото отидовме сите во црквата со селаните и двајцата попови, но литургијата ја држеше поп Дракос кој беше со нас.

Но штом го видов да ги дига светите предмети, јас што знаев дека вчера со своја рака убие едно дете, бев изненаден. И кога излеговме надвор му реков и за малку ќе се скаравме. „Не пречи“, ми кажа, „како не пречи? Вчера да убиеш човек, а денес да ги дигаш со раце светите предмети?“ Но беше многу образован и голем јунак и како што беше огромен, ги дигаше не смелите попови каде што одеше и ги стресуваше. „Што поп си ти бре?“, им велеше. „Зошто ве имаме овде?“

Во ноември 1904 год. во Воденско дејствуваше четата на капетан Епаминондас. Во с. Теово неговите андарти убија 3 селани. Четата на Мазаракис на 5 јули 1905 год. го обиколи Месимерскиот манастир и откако во него влегоа селаните, андартите ги нападнаа и убија околу 8 луѓе. Четата на Георги Гјагли го изврши најголемиот колеж во источна Македонија. Неговите андарти облечени во турска униформа влегова во с. Долно Караџова, ги собраа селаните и убија над 35 невини луѓе, додека другите селани се спасија со бегство.

Грчките чети пред да стапат во акција, т.е. да извршуваат убиства, честопати прво испраќале предупредување до одредено село. Предупредувањето, односно ултиматумот до селаните се однесувал на барањето тие пред турските власти да се изјаснат како патријаршисти, т.е. Грци. Ако во одреден рок не добиле позтивен одговор, тогаш следела нивната одмазничка акција, во која убиство на неколку селани требало да им биде лекција на останатите жители, но и на околните села што ќе им се случи доколку не прифатат да бидат Грци. Во целиот период на Македонската борба биле убиени од 3500 до 4000 етнички Македонци, што ако се земе предвит тогашната бројност на населението и фактот дека овие акции не се одвивале на целата територија на Македонија, тогаш навистина бројот на убиени Македонци не е воопшто мал.

На крај, дали една држава која се декларира како лулка на демократијата во Европа од еден ваков историски период требаше да изгради мит? Зарем убиствата и убијците на невиното македонско население, кое единствен грев им беше тоа што не беа Грци по род, треба денес да се слави. И како ли се осеќаат потомците на убиените од овие напади кои сѐ уште живеат во Грција, кога гледат како се слават убијците на нивните предци, а денес вие им велите, тоа не било ништо, заборавете го, тоа не е дел од вашата историја, вие немате ништо со нив, едноставно вие сте Грци!!! Но дали е тоа навистина така и до каде ќе оди тоа негирање на македонскиот етнички идентитет и слепоста на грчкиот национализам!?!

Како заклучок сосема на кратко ќе додадеме. Од Македонската борба во Грција е изграден култ. Учесниците во оваа несфатлива „војна“ се сместени во Пантеонот за најслужните борци на грчкиот народ, но историска вистина е дека нивната слава е продукт на политиката. Грчката политика имала потреба да престави каква било раволуционерна борба во Македонија. Сепак, улогата на оваа борба била минимална во остварувањето на големогрчката државна идеологија. Мегали идеја се оствари со Балканските војни (1912-1913), што и беше целта, а целта на Македонската борба останува да биде препознаена во насловот на овој текст.

Димитар Љоровски Вамваковски
Авторот е магистер по Историја.

Македонска Искра

The splendour of the stolen coins

Scattered heritage

THE SPLENDOUR OF THE STOLEN COINS

The Macedonian territory is extremely rich with archaeological findings, so it is an El Dorado for all professional and amateur diggers. Between the two World Wars, Serbian archaeologists worked on Macedonian sites and everything they discovered was taken to Serbian museums, where it still is today. After World War II, Macedonian archaeologists were digging there, but there were even more illegal diggers providing for the domestic and, above all, the foreign archaeological market. The items that were smuggled haven't been catalogued anywhere, nor was their existence made public, with the exception of some half-legal collections or some items that were taken a long time ago.

Indeed, many various archaeological items have been carried away, so it’s almost impossible to collect all of the relevant information about them (type, period, archaeological site etc). Nonetheless, research has been done and data on certain types of movable heritage was collected, for instance, about the abovementioned handwritten and archaeological heritage. However, information was also collected (by dr. Eleonora Petrova) about the numismatic material stolen from Macedonia during the last 150 years.

Just as in the 19th and 20th centuries, today there is also a continuous carrying out of numismatic material, without there being any information on the persons doing it or its final destination. Macedonian archaeologists obtain information on the stolen coins from foreign archaeologists, numismaticians, from catalogues and similar, often unofficial, sources. Even whole collections were taken abroad. Macedonia is rich in numismatic material (in the Museum of Macedonia alone there's a collection of around 14,500 items) and it was particularly attractive for domestic and foreign numismaticians.

Caption: The splendour of the gold coins discovered in Macedonia is today reflected in foreign museum cupboards

There have been several larger thefts of Macedonian coins recorded. The most significant and oldest collection carried away was one from Štip, taken out in 1912, but the amount of items in it is still not known. Some of these items can today be found in foreign museums. Most of them are silver coins, octodrachmae, from the Deroni tribal Paionian organisation, which inhabited parts of Macedonia and which coined money at the end of the 5th and the beginning of the 6th century. Another large collection of old coins was taken during World War I, i.e. 1917, from Topolčani near Prilep. Two hundred gold staters or distaters from the time of Philip the Second and Alexander the Third were carried away. Three of them are today in the permanent exhibition of the National Museum in Sofia, and there is no information on the locations of the others.

In the 1960s, another large collection, consisting of around two thousand Paionian coins, was carried away from Macedonia's territory, and there is information about it in some foreign publications, i.e. auction catalogues. It was sold at Sotheby's on April the 16th 1968 and at Parke-Bernett's on December the 9th 1969. It is certainly known today that 13 items of this collection are from the time of the Paionian king Lycaeios (and the Museum of Macedonia has not even one such item, although it does have a single copy that it keeps as a souvenir). In the collection there were 1,700-1,800 tetradrachmae of Patraios, 68 gold staters and distaters, 23 of which Philip's, 37 Alexander's and 8 Philip's, as well as 108 silver tetradrachmae of Philip. All of them went abroad, and the Museum of Macedonia has only a few tetradrachmae, purchased as accidental discoveries, and it has not even one distater. Yet the museum in Sofia has a collection of 208 samples of tetradrachmae of Alexander, Philip, Demetrius, Poliocritus, Lysimachus and Audoleon, although it's incomplete, since some of the pieces are in private collections in Belgrade and Zagreb, and probably other places as well. In the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb there is a part of a collection of a hundred bronze items, discovered in 1932 in Dojran [Macedonia]. Dr. Petrova states that the most significant numismatic material from the South of Macedonia is today in Zagreb and Belgrade, because in the past we were in the same country and the police didn't intervene. Many items have also been carried away during the last two decades of the 20th century, since Macedonia didn't have appropriate purchasing politics.

A wealth of Macedonian coins (particularly from the time of Macedonian kings) is today being kept in Greece. Some of those especially valuable items were discovered before 1900. Although they come from the Republic of Macedonia's territory, Greece today presents them as its own, or denies their existence.

To be continued...

Nove Cvetanoski

No Borders, No Nations: Making Greece in Macedonia

Author: John Agnew

Affiliation: University of California, Los Angeles.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.2007.00545.x

Annals od the Association of American Geographers, Volume 97, Issue 2, June 2007, pages 398 - 422. 

Abstract 

Macedonia's centrality to the making of Greece over the past century provides the empirical grounding for an exploration of how cultural-symbolic borrowing rather than cross-border othering has been crucial for border making in Modern Greece and, by extension, everywhere in the world.

There has been a recent revival in studies of borders between states and what they mean in relation to both the history of state formation and the effects of globalization on state power.

Typically, however, the borders between modern “nation-states” are seen as originating in cross-pressures between pairs of neighboring states just the same in Africa today as, say, in nineteenth-century France.

The wider contemporary geographical context may be invoked in terms of the “sides” taken in particular border disputes by other nearby states or by the Great Powers.

Rarely, however, is the wider historical-geopolitical context invoked as the primary source of the practices, simultaneously material and symbolic, that produce the desire for precise borders in the first place. With increased globalization, however, the making of Greece in Macedonia may become increasingly problematic because the political logic of all national border-making is increasingly in question.

...

A chronological narrative of the role of Macedonia in the making of a Modern Greek nationstate provides a vivid example of the way in which borders crucially enter into the very definition of nationhood. 

In the Greek case, the desire to construct a state came initially from the Greek commercial diaspora scattered around the Mediterranean and Black Seas and in the cities of Central and Western Europe allied to the romantic aspiration, shared with ‘‘philhellenic’’ Western intellectuals (most famously England’s Lord Byron), to liberate Balkan Christians from the Ottoman Turks and, hopefully, to reestablish the glory of ancient Greece. If there was a concentration of identifiably Greek people living in the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula, many if not most Greeks (of either linguistic or religious qualification) lived scattered well beyond this territory. Of course, quite what constituted a ‘‘Greek’’ as opposed to a Balkan Christian or even a Turkish Christian remained very much in doubt. As Greece was made, so were the Greeks.

The numerous popular revolts against the Ottomans over the years had never taken a national cast until the early nineteenth century but even then the first Modern Greek state was a largely foreign enterprise financed by Britain and France and in the hands of a Bavarian prince and administrators.

...

In this way, historic association and present occupancy became fatefully fused (and confused) in a cartographic representation ‘‘justifying the ‘liberation’ of the territories concerned and their annexation to Greece’’ (Tolias 2001, 15). At the same time, various apparently distinguishable groups in and around the borders of the state (particularly ‘‘Albanians’’ and ‘‘Vlachs,’’ the largely Hellenized speakers of a language akin to Romanian) were accused of ‘‘brigandage’’ that Turkish misrule was held to have passed on to them. They could be Balkan Christians but only as Hellenized Greeks could they be rescued from their outsider status. Until this happened, they were the aliens against whom Greek nationhood could be most readily defined (Tzanelli 2002).

To push beyond their dependent status and to live up to the nationalist imagination of a Greece that included

most Greeks within its compass and that was ‘‘true’’ to its Hellenic genealogy, Greek nationalists used their fusion of ethnic and historical arguments to justify territorial expansion. By the late nineteenth century this was part of what has been called a ‘‘territorial hysteria’’ (Bibo´1986) as Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, and Macedonian Slavs (and others) all strove to carve out nation-states for themselves from the European rump of the Ottoman Empire.

...

On the Greek side, a Hellenic ideal of past cultural greatness in need of discovery and revival was the overwhelming thrust of the cultural redefinition involved in the process of popular recruitment to the national cause (Herzfeld 1982; Peckham 2001; Bien 2005).

From this viewpoint, Byzantine and Ottoman influences had corrupted the ancient mores. Local folklore studies (dances, music, clothing, etc.) were used to both reveal and teach how the ‘‘masses belonged to the nation or ethnos’’ (Peckham 2001, 67). Capturing Macedonia was particularly important in this endeavor.

Not only would this bring together ancient and Byzantine conceptions of the Greek nation, thus reconciling the Church and the modern nation, it also justified a popular imperialism in which modern Greece was tied historically to Alexander the Great through the potential occupation of his homeland. Out of this confluence developed a romantic Hellenism in which Macedonia was defined as the ‘‘lung of Greece’’ and its possible ‘‘loss’’ as a mutilation (Dragoumis 1907; Vakalopoulos 1987). In this construction, Macedonia was potentially a repository of ancient Greek ideals as well as a pocket of cultural pollution. Paradoxically, therefore, it was at one and the same time both vital to the nation and a threat to its integrity. Macedonia is the historic name for a large area that was shared following the border delimitations after the First World War between Bulgaria, Greece, and Yugoslavia. It comprises the watershed of the Vardar River with the two main cities of Salonica in northeastern Greece and Skopje in Yugoslavia providing the communication and transportation axis through the region.

The region was populated predominantly with SlavoMacedonians and Bulgarians at the time of the Balkan Wars (1912–1913), although the cosmopolitan city of Salonica, with its large Jewish, Muslim, and Greek populations, was exceptional (Mazower 2004). Macedonia’s division into Pirin (Bulgarian), Vardar (Serbian), and Aegean (Greek) segments left a significant SlavMacedonian population in Greek Macedonia, particularly in rural areas and in and around Florina in the west.

The fervently held nationalist goal of incorporating the whole of Macedonia into Greece came up against a complex local reality that long seemed to challenge the ideal. The border now ran through a potential zone of expansion rather than simply delimited the limit of a territorial claim (Figure 1B). For a time Greek territorial claims in Macedonia became increasingly inseparable from a vision of a Greek state that would incorporate Crete, Macedonia, the Aegean islands, Cyprus, the west coast of Asia Minor, Constantinople (Istanbul), and areas around the Black Sea. Rather like the analogous claim to a Greater Serbia devoted to uniting all Serbs under one government, the image of Greater Greece (known as the Great Idea) was to lead to disastrous wars against the Turks first in 1897 and then, most devastatingly, in 1922. Such an expansive irredentism was at the root of Greek ‘‘cartographic anxiety’’ from the founding of the state down to the 1920s (Peckham 2001, 40).

With so many potential Greeks scattered beyond the territorial limits of the state, the possibility of incorporating all of them in a territorial form was always problematic. The initial success in Macedonia compared to failure in many other places was to be reinforced, therefore, when in the aftermath of the failed attempt at expanding into Asia Minor in 1922, the Orthodox Christian population of Anatolia was exchanged for much of the Muslim population of mainland Greece, with the majority of the transplants to Greece settling in Greek Macedonia. In this way a Macedonia still ambiguously Greek at best was ethnicized or made increasingly Greek by the transfusion of refugees (Pentzopoulos 2002; Hirschon 2003).

Uncertainty about the Greek status of Macedonia, however, did not disappear (Figure 1C). Indeed, with the incorporation of only one part of the historic region into Greece, Macedonia became, if anything, even more central to the self-definition of the nation. In the 1930s authoritarian Greek governments attempted to impose a cultural uniformity in Greek Macedonia by forbidding the use of languages other than Greek and denying the contemporary existence of any degree of regional ethnic heterogeneity. In the aftermath of the Second World War, when Greece had been invaded and devastated by the Axis powers of Italy and Germany, a Communist insurgency broke out against the Royalist Greek government as it returned home from exile. The Greek Civil War came to be as much about the ‘‘Macedonian Question’’ as it was about a change of government in Greece as a whole (Jones 1989, 66–67, 200–1, 222–23).

Particularly in its later phase, as the insurgents were forced into pockets near the Albanian and Yugoslav borders, the issue of the political future of Macedonia divided the Communist leadership as one group attempted to mobilize Slav-Macedonian support by backing an autonomous Macedonia that would then join Yugoslavia. Of course, by this time the great majority of people in Greek Macedonia saw themselves as ethnically Greek, so this meant largely abandoning whatever support they may have offered. Splits among the Communists in 1949 over whether to back a Yugoslav or Bulgarian association and successive defeats following the fateful adoption of a conventional military posture that played into the hands of the U.S.-supported Greek army led to an ever greater reliance on non-Greek recruits. Many people who fought on the Communist side or who found themselves targets of Greek government revenge, including their families or just their children, left Greek Macedonia as the war wound down. Most never returned home, either staying in Yugoslav Macedonia or emigrating to Australia and other countries in the early 1950s (Danforth 1995, 2003).

The U.S. military and economic assistance to the Greek government from 1947 to 1949 was the first fruit of the Truman Doctrine of U.S. commitment to back governments struggling with Communist insurgencies. Even after the defeat of the Greek Communists, collective memory of the critical position of Macedonia in the Civil War combined with the continuing dynamic of the Cold War to create a popular ideology, particularly powerful on the political right, in which leftist politics (whether truly Communist or not) was labeled as ‘‘Slavic’’ and its proponents as ‘‘Slavs’’ or ‘‘Bulgarians.’’

This ethnicization of political ideology fits into a pattern of Greek nationalist thought that long predates the Civil War (Herzfeld 1982, 55-60).

Classical and, by extension, modern Greek culture are associated with individualism, whereas the Slavs are associated with conformism and collectivism. Harking back to the challenge to Hellenism from the ‘‘execrable’’ Jakob Fallmerayer, the Austrian writer who in the 1840s had denied modern Greeks any racial affinity with the ancient ones and thus viewed them as definitely not European but as a mix of Slavs and Albanians (Herzfeld 1982, 75–81), the recycling of this opposition serves to rescue the Greeks from such a fate. In 1950, it not only made leftist politics un-Greek, it effectively situated Greece in the modern First or ‘‘free’’ World of the United States and Western Europe in counterpoint to the Communist or ‘‘captive’’ Second World of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. The Makronisos prison camp established to detain and reeducate leftist guerrillas, for example, required inmates to build replicas of ancient Greek monuments to show ‘‘not only the inmates but to all dissidents in Greece that the ancient Greek ‘spirit,’which had survived to the present, was incompatible with modern radical ideologies. Communists and other left-wing citizens were associated with the national ‘other,’ which in the context of the Civil War and Cold War was ‘Slavo-Communism’ ’’ (Hamilakis 2002, 318; also see Van Steen 2005). The Modern Greek historical experience in Macedonia, therefore, continued to have a negatively charged valence in postwar Greece, even as the symbolism of ancient Macedonia as integral to Greece retained its hold on Greek nationalism. If anything, this latter acquired ever greater importance be cause of continuing difficulty on other irredentist fronts, particularly in bringing Cyprus into the national fold and because of the disaster of 1955 when a pogrom in Istanbul was directed largely against that city’s Greek minority, most of whom were forced to flee the city (Kuyucu 2005;Vryonis 2005).

Increasingly, however, two conflicting images of Greek culture threatened to divide Greek nationalism: the ‘‘Hellenic’’ as directly derivative of the ancient Greeks from whom ‘‘modern’’ Greeks descended and the ‘‘Romeic’’ in which Greeks were more immediately the inheritors of Byzantine and Turkish influences (Herzfeld 2001, 17). The succession of post–Second World War military governments and, in particular, the Colonels dictatorship of 1967–1974 attempted to resolve these contradictions finally. The dictator George Papadopoulos aggressively pursued what he called a ‘‘Greece of the Hellenic Christians,’’ managing in one slogan to bring together both strands of the origins of national culture yet also to draw attention to their mutual exclusivity as pagan and Christian. Herzfeld (2001, 18) notes how much these official efforts related to lation of Macedonian sentiment, and this is certainly an important part of the picture. But it is equally significant that Greek politicians have long felt the need to claim Macedonia as an integral part of what one might call the ‘‘prehistory’’ of the Greek state. It is important to keep these details in mind when contemplating present day struggles over the definition of the past in Greece...

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/geog/downloads/856/138.pdf

Scatering of archeological objects

Scattered heritage

SCATTERING OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL OBJECTS

Artefact thefts happen almost continuously in Macedonia, and even from sites that are cultural monuments or from institutions whose responsibility is to protect the movable heritage. Just in the last decade of the 20th century, around five thousand stolen archaeological objects were repossessed, and it's presumed that there are many more items that have been taken out of the country unbeknownst to the authorities.

There isn't any person or institution that would know even the approximate number of the Macedonian cultural heritage items taken to other countries, since over the centuries many precious relics were being systematically, and in large quantities, taken out of the country—and the thieves' traces were erased. Most of the stolen treasures are kept today, unofficially, in many foreign libraries, museums, archives, churches, monasteries or private collections. That's why information on Macedonian relics is so hard to come by.

Macedonia didn't take appropriate care of its cultural heritage even after World War II, and even less attention was paid to decorations and relics in sacred buildings. The newly established Macedonian state didn’t take a timely inventory of buildings and items of cultural and historical value, which is why many monuments ended up in Belgrade libraries, museums and archives even at a time when the Macedonian people had a state and institutions of their own.

From 1946, when the care of cultural heritage was officialised, until 1952, when the cataloguing of valuable items began, an enormous amount of movable cultural heritage was taken out of Macedonian churches, monasteries, museums and other places.

Not until 1990 did the Republic Council of Cultural Monument Protection systematically begin to collect information on the displaced cultural heritage and to prepare a revealing list of such items. (That responsibility is now assigned to the Management for Cultural Heritage Protection.)

The list was being prepared in an unassuming manner – by monitoring catalogues, collecting literature and collaborating with experts. As a result of this work, the Council created around eight thousand inventory entries. According to that revealing list, which is far from being complete in any way, there are more than ten thousand valuable archaeological items in foreign public or private collections, especially in the neighbouring countries and in other European countries. Archaeological heritage is the most prominent type of cultural heritage in our country (there are more than 4,300 catalogued sites alone) and it's highly likely that these types of items were carried out most often, being the easiest to smuggle.

Yet the estimates based on scholarly research show that in Macedonia there are around 500,000 catalogued museum pieces. More than 150,000 of them are archaeological items, 100,000 of which are in the Macedonian museums – and not fewer than 50,000 are in foreign museums!

Because of the advanced illegal trade with antiques, mostly with archaeological items, Macedonian archaeological sites—most commonly, the ancient necropolises—are very often exposed to illicit digging. These illegal activities were most intense in the 1990s, when from 1993 to 1997 alone, 52 such cases were discovered in 30 sites, 12 of which were protected as cultural monuments. (Some of them were massively destroyed.) Accordingly, there is reason to assume that during that period many archaeological items were carried out of Macedonia, and can today be found in private collections as well as in museums in some countries that are particularly interested in ancient objects. 

To be continued...

Nove Cvetanoski

Peter Green about the language and the names of the Ancient Macedonans

The Macedonians spoke their own native language which was unrecognizable by the Greeks. The very label barbarian literally means a person who does not speak Greek. Though Alexander spoke also Greek, loved Homer, and respected his tutor Aristotle, there is much evidence that he hated the Greeks of his day, just like his father Philip II. Philip had razed to the ground the Greek cities on Macedonian territory (including all 32 Greek cities in Chalcidice) and enslaved their inhabitants. Alexander the Great thoroughly destroyed Thebes. His Asian empire has not once been described as "Greek", but is correctly called Macedonian for he won it with an army of 35,000 Macedonians and only 7,600 Greeks, and similar numbers of Thracians and Illyrians who were all forced to fight with their Macedonian overlords. The overwhelming number of Greeks however, 50,000 in total (Curtius), had however, distinguished themselves on the side of the Persians and fought fiercely till the end against the Macedonians. For instance, at the battle of Granicus there were 20,000 Greeks, out of which the Macedonians killed 18,000 and the 2,000 survivors were sent in chains to Macedonia (Arrian, Curtius). Arrian specifically speaks of the "old racial rivalry" between Macedonians and Greeks that characterized this battle. At the battle of Issus, there were 30,000 Greeks on the side of the Persians to fight Alexander, and their survivors also fought at Gaugamela along with the Albanians and the Persians, against the Macedonians.

The question of the use of the ancient Macedonian language was raised by Alexander himself during the trial of Philotas, one of his generals accused of treason. This is what Alexander has said to Philotas:

"The Macedonians are about to pass judgement upon you; I wish to know weather you will use their native tongue in addressing them."

 Philotas replied: 

"Besides the Macedonians there are many present who, I think, will more easily understand what I shell say if I use the same language which you have employed."

 Than said the king:

 "Do you not see how Philotas loathes even the language of his fatherland? For he alone disdains to learn it. But let him by all means speak in whatever way he desires, provided that you remember that he holds out customs in as much abhorrence as our language"

(Curtius). 

by Peter Green

The Macedonians did not have Greek names. It is acutely judging by the distinctiveness of the surviving Macedonian names and glosses, that many scholars proved that the Macedonians were not Greek. Today, people of different ethnic backgrounds carry same names like Peter, David, Daniel, etc. These names are universal just like the names of Alexander and Philip were, and therefore, these names are not a proof that the Macedonians were Greek, since these names are found in other non-Greek nations.

by Peter Green

The icons' jurney

Scattered heritage

THE ICONS' JOURNEY

Not only manuscripts and books were carried away from Macedonia and scattered across the world, but also many church relics, icons, archaeological and ethnological objects and other various pieces of movable cultural heritage. Macedonian churches, monasteries, archaeological sites and museums were plundered for centuries, and thefts happen even today. Icons were especially interesting to people who legitimately scattered Macedonian cultural heritage.

A French customs official had a Macedonian friend, and during a conversation in the 1990s the customs official happened to mention that his coworkers and he confiscated three icons, the origin of which was unknown, but about which there was an unusual story. His Macedonian friend happened to be a bit more knowledgeable and informed about icon thefts in Macedonia and began an investigation. After Macedonian police reviewed his findings, Interpol became involved, and it was established that one of the three icons came from Macedonia.

If the French customs official didn’t happen to have a Macedonian friend, the seized icon's identity may not have been discovered, since the story the customs officials had been told about the icons wasn't in any way related to Macedonia. The three icons were discovered in the luggage of a French physics professor while he was crossing the border. He claimed they didn’t belong to him, but to his friend Marie Helex Musner from Morocco, and she in turn claimed she painted them herself in her spare time. Yet, the accidentally discovered icon was examined by Macedonian medieval iconography experts and found out to be an icon of Jesus Christ dating from the 16th century, which was painted in the St. Jovan Kaneo monastery in Ohrid.

Another detail from the unusual story about this icon is interesting. After the icon was examined, it turned out that it hadn't been catalogued anywhere in the Macedonian institutions, nor had it been included in the inventory of cultural heritage done in 1956, so that almost no-one in Macedonia knew of its existence. That, in turn, created another problem: It couldn’t be proved that it was stolen from Macedonia! (And if its origin cannot be proven, then there's no basis for asking for its return.) But this case poses a dilemma: Were there accidental omissions in the inventory of our valuable movable cultural heritage, which isn't complete even now, at the beginning of the 21st century?!

Many other icons had fates similar to the fate of Ohrid's Jesus. They often end up in Western private collections and can rarely be reclaimed. As a result, Macedonian institutions have very limited information on the whereabouts of Macedonian icons, as well as other ethnological and archaeological items.

Caption: No-one knows, nor will ever know, the number of icons taken from Macedonia. Since they were being systematically seized and relocated, their number is much higher than the several thousand icons that have been saved

The icons from the Macedonian churches and monasteries suffered the most during the Balkan Wars and World War I, when almost all valuable icons were carried away (except the ones that were accidentally saved or hidden). However, icons were also stolen before and after the war – even after World War II, when Macedonia already had its own institutions responsible for the care of cultural heritage. There are recorded thefts, but probably there are even more unrecorded ones. From the end of the war until 1952, many churches, monasteries, museums, and galleries were robbed of many valuables, such as: icons, frescoes, carvings, old manuscripts and books, gold objects, silver objects etc. But not until 1952 did Macedonia start to make an inventory of the objects that are considered cultural and historical monuments, among which are the icons. After the inventory was completed, in 1963, around 22,800 icons were registered in around 1,700 churches and monasteries, no small number considering all the thefts. The icons were assigned numbers, photographed and described, but some of them vanished in the meantime nonetheless – from museums, archaeological sites, churches, and monasteries. Thus, from 1963 to 1991, 61 thefts were recorded from churches and monasteries, 49 of which were thefts of icons. Only 7 of them were solved, however, i.e. only 44 icons were located (two of them destroyed) of the 368 icons that were stolen.

In the future it will be even harder to find the icons that have yet to be discovered, since their final destinations are private collections in Western Europe. And there are icons there that were obtained a long time ago. No-one knows, nor will ever know, the number of icons that have been taken away from Macedonia. But as regards the systematical thefts and relocations of those icons, we can safely say that there are more icons abroad than there are icons saved in Macedonia. Which means that such icons number in the tens of thousands. One can only estimate the value of such a cultural heritage.

To be continued...

Nove Cvetanoski

Who are the true Macedonians?

Who are the true Macedonians?

by Borce Georgevski

(Cross Examination of the Greek and Macedonian views on the Macedonian Question)

Introduction

After the break-up of Yugoslavia, five new states emerged as its successors. Out of them, only the Republic of Macedonia proclaimed independence without warfare and bloodshed. Hence, one would expect that the Republic of Macedonia would be the first to receive international recognition. However, that did not happen. In fact, the Republic of Macedonia was the last state, from the successor states of Former Yugoslavia, to receive international recognition, and even then under a temporary label.

Macedonia’s recognition was vetoed and prevented by Greece. Because of Greece, Macedonia was deprived from joining International organizations, and since Greece is a member of the European Union and NATO, these Organizations were quite numerous.

Why did Greece act with such forcefulness and severity in its attempt to prevent this small country, inferior to Greece in military and economic power, from obtaining international recognition? And, what is the validity of its main argument that

“Macedonia is and has always been part of the Greek national heritage and no one else has the right to use that name? (PMN)” A statement based on Modern Greek claims that the Ancient Macedonians were Greek.

In view of this Greek claim, I will dedicate most of the space in this write-up to examine the “historical aspects” offered by the Greek side and then present evidence from the Macedonian side.

So that there is no misunderstanding, I will refer to the population of Macedonia from about 700 BC to 700 AD (approximately) as “Ancient Macedonian”. I will also refer to the population of today’s Republic of Macedonia, which declare itself as non-Greek, non-Serbian, non-Bulgarian, non-Albanian and which is a separate and distinct people, as “Macedonian” in the meaning of modern ethnic Macedonian.

In the discussions that follow I will present unaltered material directly from primary sources from which the Greek side draws its arguments. Secondary sources will also be utilized, particularly those which appear to be unbiased towards neither the Greek or Macedonian point of view. And finally I will present both sides of the arguments including their interpretations.

Literature

My emphasis will be on primary sources, since all other works are just interpretations and speculation based on the former. The national views of the Greek and Macedonian side will be presented through two written works made available to me, as well as material offered on Web sites.

The book “Macedonia and its relations with Greece” put together by the Council for Research into South Eastern Europe of The Macedonian Academy of sciences and Arts (MANU), which I use as a source here, is a rare book, translated from Macedonian to English, which specifically deals with the Macedonian side of the issue. There is also an ocean of literature in the Republic of Macedonia, but some of it tends to be a bit speculative. The situation is similar on the Greek side where much of the literature tends to be nationalistic and highly speculative.

As for the book “Macedonia and its relations with Greece”, in my view I believe to some degree of accuracy, does a good job in presenting the information especially about the ancient Macedonian language, pointing out that there are not enough ancient Macedonian words preserved to be able to reconstruct the language, but at the same time, it points out that most preserved words are certainly not Greek.

The paper “The Macedonian Question Reexamined” written by Dr. Symeon Giannakos and published in the “Mediterranean Journal Quarterly”, I believe is one of the better papers that represent the Greek point of view, from what I could find in print. I is focused, somewhat unbiased, and provides much valuable information for understanding the Greek point of view. It is a pity it does not explore the Macedonian point of view in similar depth. This paper also explores the Bulgarian and to a lesser extent, the Serbian points of view, while dedicating only a couple of paragraphs to the Macedonian point of view.

There is however, one great flaw in Dr. Giannakos’ representation of the Macedonians. This flaw is revealed in a statement he makes claiming that the Macedonian identity was created in 1906. He says: “that the Macedonians were a separate people, [is] a theory created in 1906 by Jovan Cvijic.”

Mr. Giannakos here overlooks the works of Gjorgji Pulevski compiled at the end of the 19th century, the revolts of the Macedonian High School students in Solun (Thessaloniki) against the Bulgarian language in the late XIX century, and certainly one of the most important corner-stones of the Macedonian nation, Krste Misirkov’s book “About Macedonian Matters” published in 1903.

And finally, I do not agree with Dr. Giannakos’ proposed solution to the Macedonian question where he suggests that the Republic of Macedonia be partitioned and the pieces be given to the neighboring states. This is not a desirable solution and has not worked in the past. This type of solution was already implemented in 1913 and it has not solved the Macedonian question. Dr. Giannakos wrote his paper in 1992, many years after Macedonia was partitioned and should have known that such a scenario is unrealistic, and, quite honestly, violent.

Timeline Analysis

For my timeline analysis I will sub-divide Macedonia’s history into four periods:

1 - Prehistoric times to Alexander III of Macedon

2 - Alexander III’s death to mid-6th century

3 - Mid-6th century to mid-19th century

4 - Mid-19th century to the present

Considering the nature of the topic I will put more emphasis on the first and most disputable period. I will also present the fourth period in some detail since that is the period during which the Macedonian national consciousness peaked. Finally I will put forth what could be a likely scenario of how the Macedonian national consciousness developed through the centuries, and will also propose a possible solution to solving the Macedonian Question.

1. Prehistoric times to Alexander III of Macedon

According to some Greeks, the Macedonians were a Dorian tribe which settled on the territory of today’s Aegean/Greek Macedonia, a territory that was taken from the native Thracians by an act of war. Greeks draw this conclusion from the following passage from Herodotus:

… when they [Lacadaemonians, Dorian Tribe] were driven out of Histiaeotis by the Cadmaeans, they settled on Mount Pindus, at a place called Macednum; thence they again relocated to Dyopis; and some time later after arriving at the Peloponnesus they were called Dorians. (Herodotus, I, 56)

Macedonians argue that this claim, besides being vague at the mention of Macednum sounding likeMacedonia, is not supported by any other historical or archaeological evidence. The efforts of Greek scholars to find Dorian roots in the preserved ancient Macedonian words gave no results, so recent official Greek scholarship was forced to discard this hypothesis (FAQ, History …).

The present Greek view regarding early ancient history is based mainly on the writings of Herodotus who holds a biased pro-Greek view of “History.” The strongest Greek argument regarding this matter is based on a passage from Herodotus in which Alexander, the king of Macedon, is admitted to the Olympic Games, an honor reserved only for Greeks usually. Here is that passage in its entirety:

“That these princes, who are sprung from Perdiccas, are Greeks, as they themselves affirm, I myself happen to know; and in future part of my history I will prove that they are Greeks. Moreover, the judges presiding at the games of the Greek in Olympia have determined that they are so; for when Alexander wished to enter the lists, and went there for that purpose, his Greek competitors wished to exclude him, alleging, that the games were not instituted for barbarian participants, but Greeks. But Alexander, after he had proved himself to be an Argive(from Argos), was pronounced to be a Greek, and when he was to contend in the stadium, his lot fell out with that of the first competitor. In this manner were these things transacted.” (Herodotus, V, 22)

Further in the “Histories” (VIII, 137) Herodotus presents the descendants of this Alexander who was the seventh ancestor of Perdiccas who came from Argos. But what does this prove? At best, this proves that the Macedonian royal dynasty may have begun from Greek roots. Even though it is obvious in the text thatHerodotus is taking upon himself to persuade the reader that Alexander was definitely Greek (why the need to persuade if there wasn’t already a doubt?),he still describes the Macedonian king Amyntas, father ofAlexander, ruling around 500 BC as a “Greek ruling over Macedonians” (Herodotus, V, 20) and Hammond presenting the original sentence in Greek says, “Herodotus said this in four words, introducing Amyntas,…, as ‘a Greek ruling over Macedonians’ ( 5,20,4, anhr Ellhn Makedonwn nparcz ” (Hammond, 19) So, it seems like the non-Greek-ness of the general Macedonian population was widely accepted at that time.

During the seven generations since Perdiccas’s rule however, the kings took wives from the local Macedonian nobles and mixed their blood with that of the Macedonians. Think about it: if the Greeks at the Olympic Games questioned the Macedonian king’s origin as being non-Greek barbarian, how then can his descendants be Greek?

We find the following passages in the “History of the Ancient World” by Chester Starr:

Its [Macedonian] kings fostered Greek culture at their courts and were accepted as Greeks by the officials of the Olympic Games; but the peasantry and the nobles, though akin to Greeks, were considered distinct. (Starr 367)

From here we can see that the kings were said to be of Greek origin which only applied to the royal family and not to all Macedonians. The nobles and the general population were of a distinct Macedonian identity. Today we have many examples where royal families were started by nobles from other nations. For example, the former Romanian king was of German origin. This however does not mean that all Romanians are automatically Germans or that the king is Romanian. However, after a few generations, with the kings marrying local women, bloodlines are mixed, and as this happens more and more, their future generations would become Romanians with some German ancestry. Ironically, prince Otto from Bavaria, founder of the Modern 19thcentury Greek royal family was a German. Should we now start making claims that all Greeks today are Germans based on this fact?

Even if we are to fully accept that Perdiccas was of Greek origin, surely then Philip II of Macedon, born nine generations later (that is nine generations of mixing blood-lines) was almost completely Macedonian.

One of the strongest arguments the Macedonian side poses about Philip not being Greek is drawn from the speeches of Demosthenes called Philippics. In his third Philippic Demosthenes says the following:

“And we must be sensible that whatever wrong the Greeks sustained from Lacedaemonians or from us, was at least inflicted by genuine people of Greece; (…) And yet in regards to Philip and his conduct they feel not this, although he is not only no Greek and no way akin to Greeks, but not even a barbarian of a place honorable to mention; in fact, a vile fellow of Macedon, from which one could not even purchase a respectable slave.” (Demosthenes, III Philippic)

Greeks object to this and accuse Demosthenes of being non-factual because of his hatred for Philip who posed a threat to the freedom of Athens. Still, Macedonians argue that Demosthenes was the greatest orator of ancient Greece, so it is very questionable that he would use false language in his speeches, especially having in mind the audience in front of which he spoke that consisted of intelligent and well educated Athenians.

Further, Greek sources argue, since all the Ancient Macedonians were Greeks, it is logical that Philip II andAlexander of Macedon were also Greeks. Macedonians however, oppose such arguments claiming that just because the founder of the Macedonian dynasty may have been Greek, that does not make the Macedonian people or Philip and Alexander Greek. Greeks support their views mainly with quotes from the letter Isocratessend to Philip saying “Argos is the land of your fathers”. (Isoc., To Philip, 32)

“It is your privilege, as one who has been blessed with untrammeled freedom, to consider all Hellas your fatherland, as did the founder of your race”. (Isoc., To Philip, 127) “… all men will be grateful to you: the Hellenes for your kindness to them and the rest of the nations, if by your hands they are delivered from barbaric despotism and are brought under the protection of Hellas.” (Isoc., To Philip, 154) (Quoted at PMN, Historical …)

In spite of the fact that Isocrates was trying to persuade Philip to start a war for his own causes (not a small thing), what else could this mean? This could only enforce the previous hypothesis that the founder of the Macedonian royal house was of Greek origin, which we already dealt with. It doesn’t say anything about the identity of the Macedonians, and even puts doubt on Philip’s self-identity as a Greek, as if such self-identity was strong, would there have been need of so much reminding and pleading from Isocrates? The Greek view assumes Philip to be Greek only through his predecessor Perdiccas, the founder of the Macedonian dynasty. However, nine generations after Perdiccas the Greek blood in Philip’s veins was all but vanished, and questioned by everyone, both inside and outside of Macedon.

Macedonian sources use the following quotations extracted from the biographies of Alexander the Great to prove that the Macedonians, at least the educated nobles, were bilingual, speaking the common language that the educated spoke, which at that period was Greek (as Latin was in the Middle Ages), as well as the uniquely Macedonian language which foreigners, including Greeks, could not understand. The quotes were taken from the part of the histories describing Alexander’s general Philotas’s trial for treason.

Alexander said: “The Macedonians are about to pass judgment upon you; I wish to know whether you will address them in their native tongue.”

Thereupon Philotas replied: “Besides the Macedonians there are many present who, I think, will more easily understand what I shall say if I use the same language which you have employed, for no other reason, I suppose, than in order that your speech might be understood by the greater number.”

Then Alexander said: “Do you not see how Philotas loathes even the language of his fatherland? For he alone disdains to learn it. But let him by all means speak in whatever way he desires, provided that you remember he holds our customs in as much abhorrence as our language. (Quintus Curtius Rufus, Alexander, VI. ix. 34 - 36) (Quoted at FAQ, History …)

There is also the following quote which has been much interpreted by both sides:

“For the Macedonians, I will conquer the world (…) but not for the Hellenes” (Plutarch, Alexander, 47).

In support of this are also the quotes taken from the Life of Aratus, Athenian Statesman, as described byPlutarch, in which he states that Athens was under foreign (Macedonian) rule:

“A year after, being again elected general, he [Aratus] resolved to attempt the capture of Acro-Corinth, not so much for the advantage of the Sicyonians or Achaeans as considering that by expelling the Macedonian garrison he would free all Greece alike from tyranny which oppressed every part of her. (…)

And so may this action be very safely termed sister of those of Peolopidas the Theban and Thasybulus the Athenian, in which they slew tyrants; except, perhaps, it exceeded them upon this account that it was not against natural Greeks, but against a foreign and strange domination.” (Plutarch, III, Aratus, 425)

From the above quotes we can deduce that the Macedonians were a distinctly different ethnos. Sometimes the Greek side claims that what Alexander meant in the Philotas passage was that Macedonian was a dialect of Greek that was so distant that it has become incomprehensible, however the passage itself says that Philotasnever “learned” the language of his fatherland, and if it was talking merely about a dialect it is doubtful thatPhilotas would have to “learn” anything. Dialects, as a rule, are usually comprehensible; otherwise they stop being dialects and become separate languages. From the passage we could reasonably be sure that the Macedonian language was not understood by Greeks, and that they were not interchangeable. Finally, the quote from the Life of Aratus makes it undeniable that Macedonians were considered “foreign occupiers” in Greece, and definitely not as “natural Greeks.”

There are a few Greek inscriptions that have survived in Macedonia from ancient times but they were left there by the latter Macedonian kings, when Greek was the standard language in the courts and for official business, much like French used to be in England and on the English Court for several centuries. That, of course, did not mean that the population suddenly became Greek, but only bi-lingual. Some Ancient Macedonian words have survived today but they are too few for the language to be reconstructed. It should be noted that no complete text to this day has been found from the ancient Macedonian language. Only about a hundred or so words are known from which it is impossible to reconstruct the entire language. (MANU, 12)

Macedonians have shown that although some surviving ancient Macedonian words may be close to Ancient Greek (modern Greek - Koine, is quite different), but with a changed vocal system most words resemble Sanskrit and have no resemblance to their the Greek equivalents (FAQ, History ..) Here are some examples of ancient Macedonian words that sound Greek:

Ancient Macedonian: ade (sky), Ancient Greek: aither (air)

Ancient Macedonian: danos (death), Ancient Greek: thanatos (death)

Ancient Macedonian: keb(a)le (head), Ancient: kephale (head)

Here are some examples of non-Greek sounding words which have parallels in other Indo - European languages:

Ancient Macedonian: aliza (a white layer under the bark of a tree), Ancient Slavonic: elolha (a white layer under the bark of a tree)

Ancient Macedonian: goda (innards), Greek: entera (innards), Ancient Indian Sanskrit: gudam (intestine). (FAQ, Who are the Macedonians?)

There are Macedonian historians who believe that texts written in the Ancient Macedonian language which is different from Greek do exist but are purposely hidden by the Greek government and Church. (FAQ, History …) If the Ancient Macedonians were Greek then why did their contemporaries in their writing address them as a separate people? Is it perhaps because they might not have been Greek? N.G.L. Hammond, a long-time Ancient Macedonian history researcher, wrote the following about the Greek view of the Macedonians:

“Writing in 346BC (years of great danger and peril for Athens and Athenians) and eager to win Philip’s approval,Isocrates paid tribute to Philip as a blue-blooded Greek and made it clear at the same time that the Macedonians, the regular people, were not Greeks. Aristotle, born at Stageira on the Macedonian/Greek border and the son of a Greek doctor at the Macedonian court, classed the Macedonians and their institutions of monarchy as non-Greek, as we shall see shortly. It is thus not surprising that the Macedonians considered themselves to be, and were treated by Alexander the Great as being, separate from the Greeks. They were proud to be so.” (Hammond, 19-20)

Another interesting bit about Aristotle was that he was not allowed voting rights in the Athenian Academy because he was not born in Greece proper, but in Macedonia, a foreign land, although a son of a Greek father.

2 - Alexander III’s death to mid-6th century

After Alexander III died his kingdom was partitioned into three separate empires and ruled by his Macedonian generals, the “Epigoni” (Successors). At that time, in this newly formed world, there was an intense mixing of races and languages. This period was labeled the “Hellenistic Period” by modern historians to differentiate it from the previous period termed the “Hellenic Period” (Starr, 329). Greek (Koine) was adopted as the official language of trade and commerce from Iran to Macedonia, and all the educated population, to a great extent, used this language. Macedonian rule in Europe lasted until the year 168 BC when, with the loss of the battle atPydna, the whole of Macedonia fell under Roman rule. Immediately afterwards, even though Macedonians were proclaimed “free citizens”, they were subordinate to the Romans, a condition which they found difficult to accept.

Because of this, an uprising took place in 148 BC, after which Macedonia was made a Roman province and partitioned and turned into two parts; Macedonia Prima which approximately corresponded to today’s Aegean Macedonia, and Macedonia Salutaris, which approximately corresponded to today’s Vardar and Pirin Macedonia. “The two Macedonian parts formed the Diocese of Macedonia, to which the Romans attached all of modern Greece and Albania” (MWC). This Roman definition of the territory of Macedonia is what later Macedonian historians refer to when talking about the “Region of Macedonia” and it’s natural borders.

Another important period in the region’s history is the adoption of Christianity by the Macedonian and Greek population. While Modern Greeks automatically presume that all people inhabiting Macedonia were already Greeks, thus the Byzantine/East Roman term ‘Romanoi’ being synonymous with Greek, the Macedonian sources see it differently:

After the establishment of Christianity in the region, both Macedonians and Greeks began to see themselves as Christians and Roman citizens. Those who spoke Latin began to call themselves ‘Romani’. Those who spoke primarily Greek in the official communication, whether they were Macedonians, Greeks, Armenians, or Arabs, referred to themselves as ‘Rhomaioi’, a Greek word for Romans, but in this case referring to the “Greek-speaking.” Those who used the Slavic language were known as ‘Slovene.’ (MWC)

According to mainstream history, the Balkans were invaded by a variety of people from the 6th to the 9th century AD during which time the Slav speakers in the Balkans and beyond began to adopt Christianity. The following quote came from a Greek source:

“As the countryside was depopulated by the repeated barbarian incursions and the majority of the inhabitants sought refuge and protection in the urban centers, the cities were transformed into centers of intense commercial and cultural activity.” (PMN, Historical …)

Regarding the same period, the following quote came from a Macedonian source:

“In the sixth century [..] Slavs captured all of Macedonia from the East Romans, with the exception of a few coastal cities. Macedonia maintained its independence and resisted attacks by the Armenian and Syrian dynasties that held power in New Rome (Byzantium) and by the shamanist and nomadic Bulgars who roamed the steppes of the Dobrudja with their herds.” (MWC)

With this began a new period in the history of Macedonia. As we can see, both sources seem to agree that incursions took place in Macedonia and Macedonia was settled by a variety of people, the majority being Slav speakers, but none of this is strongly supported by historical and archeological data. With the adoption of Christianity these people were integrated into the Byzantine Empire and started to settle in towns and cities as well, besides almost completely ruling the entire countryside of Macedonia. Also, these people could not allhave been Slavs, in an ethnic sense, because of their vast numbers and the also-vast region they occupied. So, at best they can be described as “Slav speakers” because they shared a language with common roots, which they used for all the official communication. Also, it could not be definitely determined if these people were “invaders” or permanent residents who lived on those lands and were, in fact, simply refugees displaced by incursions that were taking place further up north.

3 - Mid-6th century to mid-19th century

This period of Macedonian history is characterized by a short initial period of relative independence, followed by large periods of foreign domination. The foreign domination, starting with the Frankish conquest after the collapse of the Byzantine Empire and the Sack of Constantinople, continued for five centuries of Ottoman occupation until the 20th century. The Ottomans considered the entire Christian population to be the same (”Romans”), and usually in their statistics we find recorded only numbers of Christian and Moslem families (PMN, Historical …).

During this period the population in Macedonia began to identify itself by religion rather than by nation, thus the various ethnic identities became more and more blurred partly due to the free intermixing of all the nations in Macedonia. It was in the middle of the 19th century, when Western Europeans introduced nationalism to Macedonia that the national feeling of Macedonians, primarily the intelligentsia, began to awaken. This process was accelerated after the independence of Bulgaria, and its fierce propaganda to present the Macedonians as Bulgarians, which the Macedonian intelligentsia had to fight against.

4 - Mid-19th century to the present

Before continuing with the analysis of the Greek-Macedonian relations, I would like to point out some facts about the awakening of the Macedonian national consciousness, a process which began way before 1906. The year 1906 was the date Dr. Giannakos used, citing Cvijic’s book mentioned earlier as the “creation” of the “Macedonian” nation. (Gianakos, 38)

The Macedonians described themselves as: non-Greek, non-Bulgarian, non-Serb, but a distinct Macedonian nation already in the 19th century. On April 8, 1887 two Macedonian revolutionaries sent a letter to the Grand Vizier in Istanbul asking for permission to begin publishing a newspaper called “Macedonian Newspaper”. A couple of reasons for wanting to publish it were stated as follows:

“We would like to present information before a wider audience showing that our fatherland has nothing in common with the Bulgarians, or with any of the other Balkan petty states.”

“We would like to inform our readers to avoid foreign propaganda and warn them of foreign intrigues.” (Ristovski, 12)

In January 1888 nineteen students were expelled from the Bulgarian run Exarchate Gymnasium in Solun/Thessaloniki following a student rebellion. The students were expelled because they refused to study “in the Bulgarian language and wanted to be taught in their native Macedonian language”. (Ristovski, 14)

In 1890 the book “Das Volksthum der Slaven Makedoniens Ein Beitrag zur Klarung der Orientfrage” by Karl Hron, was published in Vienna in which the author scientifically rejects Bulgarian and Serbian claims on the Macedonians.

And finally in the book “About Macedonian Matters” by Krste Misirkov, the “Macedonian Bible” published in 1903, he clearly says that Macedonians are neither Greeks, nor Bulgarians, nor Serbs, but a separate nation, with a separate language, culture, and history. In his book Misirkov also outlines the history of the Macedonian nation, and lays the foundations of the Macedonian literary language. Misirkov, a linguist by education, discusses in length the similarities and the differences between the Macedonian and all other languages belonging to the South Slav family of Languages. In his newspaper “Vardar”, published in 1905 in a language very similar to the modern Macedonian literary language, different from Bulgarian, Misirkov uses the first forms of the Macedonian Cyrillic Alphabet to represent sounds that have no equivalents in other Slav languages like kj and gj, and separate letters for lj, nj, dzh and dz.

Greeks prefer to cite Ottoman statistics which base their numbers on church affiliation as follows:

The [1905] census indicates that the non-Muslim inhabitants of Macedonia identified themselves as follows: 648, 962 Greeks, 557, 000 Bulgarians, and 167, 601 Serbians. (Giannakos, 29)

Macedonians however view such Ottoman statistics as unreliable because they are based on Christian church affiliation and not on ethnicity.

Mr. Giannakos admits that “… A long-time student of Balkan Affairs, Elisabeth Barker, points out that perhaps as many as half of the inhabitants who identified themselves as

Greeks were in reality “Slavs” allegiant to the Greek patriarchate Church in Constantinople. They were identified as Greeks, therefore, not by ethnic origin but by Christian church affiliation.” (Giannakos, 30)

Macedonians prefer to cite travel reports from Westerners who visited Macedonia which they consider to be more reliable than most Greek, Serbian or Bulgarian statistics of the time. One such traveler was H.N. Brailsford who visited Macedonia twice in 1903-4. The second time he spent five months in Bitola/Monastirdistrict. Here is what Brailsford had to say about the ethnic composition of Macedonia:

“One is compelled to write of ‘Turks’ in dealing with Macedonia, but really the term has no ethnological meaning - as little as the other term, ‘Greeks’. The first step, indeed, towards understanding the Macedonian question is to realize that roughly in Macedonia Proper - the Macedonia which revolts, which claims to be a unity and asks for autonomy - there are neither Greeks nor Turks”. (Brailsford, 80)

“Roughly speaking, Turks, Greeks, Jews and Gypsies are found only in the towns and may be almost ignored in a broad view of Macedonian ethnography.” (Brailsford, 86)

Macedonians also argue that Macedonian peasants, at that time still did not have a definite national consciousness and tended to side with one or another of the contemporary propagandas, mainly for economical reasons.

The French consul in Bitola in 1904 was quoted as saying that “with a million francs I could turn every Macedonian into a Frenchman. I would preach to them that the Macedonians are the descendants of the French crusaders who conquered Salonica in the 12th century, and the francs would do the rest.” (Brailsford, 103)

The notion of nationality was very extendible and dependent on economic resources in Macedonia at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century is most clearly shown by the following case as told by Brailsford:

“I was talking to a wealthy peasant who came from a neighboring village to Monastir[Bitola] market. He spoke Greek well, but hardly like a native. ‘Is your village Greek,’ I asked him, ‘or Bulgarian?’ ‘Well,’ he replied, ‘it is Bulgarian now, but four years ago it was Greek.’ The answer seemed to him entirely natural and commonplace. ‘How,’ I asked in some bewilderment, ‘did that miracle come about?’ ‘Why,’ said he, ‘we are all poor men, but we want to have our own school and priest who will look after us properly. We used to have a Greek teacher. We paid him $5 a year and the Greek consul paid him another $5; but we had no priest of our own. We shared a priest with several other villages, but he was very unpunctual and remiss. We went to the Greek Bishop to complain, but he refused to do anything for us. The Bulgarians heard of this and they came and made us an offer. They said they would give us a priest who would live in the village and a teacher to whom we need pay nothing. Well, Sir, ours is a poor village, and so of course we became Bulgarian.” (Brailsford, 102)

At present, official Greek Government is attempting to stop international recognition of Macedonia by any means possible. Ethnic Macedonians born in Greek occupied Macedonia, known to the world as “Northern Greece,” who fled during the Greek Civil War, are still not allowed to return to Greece and in accordance with infamous Articles 19 and 20 of Greek Law governing Nationality, their properties and Greek citizenship have been confiscated.

Because of Greek objections, even the Republic of Macedonia, a sovereign and independent state, had to change its national flag and constitution. Still not satisfied, Greece is now putting pressure on the Republic of Macedonia to change its name and this has been going on for almost two decades. Objections to Macedonia’s name is an official excuse for the Greek government to sidestep real issues like its poor treatment of the Ethnic Macedonians living in the so called “Greek Macedonia” who have absolutely no human rights to learn and express their ethnic heritage.

Macedonians believe that the real reason behind Greece’s belligerent behavior is fear from the return of the Ethnic Macedonians to their native places in Greek Macedonia and asking for their properties back. After the Greek Civil War ended in 1949, many Macedonians fled from Greece in order to avoid persecution. By article 19 of the Greek Law on Nationality, which was created especially for this purpose, they were forbidden from ever returning to Greece and their citizenship and properties were confiscated. However, most Macedonians who fled Greece still possess legal documents, dating back to the Ottoman Empire, which show that they own land in their native Macedonia, and they can easily win court cases to get their land back. Article 20 of the Greek Law on Nationality allows the government to withdraw citizenships and confiscate properties of individuals who would “act or speak against Greek interests in foreign countries.” According to the US State department this article has been used in 1995 in 72 cases to revoke the Greek citizenship of individuals.

After its initial approach, the Greek government in 1996 adopted a different one. This was confirmed by Andreas Papandreou, leader of the Greek Socialist Party, when he said that “the name is not a question of history, and it doesn’t have anything to do with the past, but it’s related to the future, to the stability and the security of the region” (Athens affirms …). Some Macedonians believe that the Greek government has already recognized the Republic of Macedonia by its name:

“During the conference for standardization of the geographical names, held within the UN in Geneva on August 31st, 1982, the Republic of Greece already recognized our state with the name Socialist Republic of Macedonia. Before that it recognized the Macedonian language, officially recognizing the Macedonian Cyrillic alphabet.” Documentation for this can be found at the UN. (Greek Recognition …)

Also in a “Memorandum of the Republic of Macedonia to the United Nations considering the name,” drafted by the Ministry of Foreign Relations, the following was stated:

b) Until August 1988 Greece NEVER IN ANY OFFICIAL FORM MADE USE OF THE

NAME MACEDONIA [capitals as in the original]. Its northern province was called Northern Greece. With a decree from the Greek Prime Minister, in August 1988, the name “Northern Greece” was changed to “MACEDONIA”. Hence, in Greece this name had been in use for as little as 4 years. [Written in the beginning of 1993]

v) THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA AS A STATE HAS EXISTED FROM AUGUST 1944 - FOR ALMOST HALF A CENTURY. The Republic of Macedonia, as one of the six republics of Former Yugoslavia, until its break-up, was a member of UN. In fact, Lazar Mojsov, a Macedonian, was president of the XXXII UN General Assembly. (Ministry of …, 4)

5. Most likely Ethno-genesis of the Macedonian People

The Prehistoric Macedonians were native to the Balkan Peninsula, related to the Pelasgians, Illyrians and Thracians, and inhabited the territory of Macedonia before the coming of the tribes that we today call the “Ancient Greeks”. The early Macedonians had primitive state organizations and were ruled by tribal kings. It was not until the 7th century BC that Macedonia became a state as defined in modern terms. History tells us that this state was created by Perdiccas who was possibly from Argos Orestikon, modern day “Kostur/Kastoria” Region in Greek Macedonia, and who founded the royal Macedonian house. At the time however “Argos” was a popular name and several cities existed by that name in the region all the way down to the Peloponnesus. So it was easy for Perdiccas’s descendants to have claimed that they were of Greek origin from Argos(Peloponnesus) and therefore take part in the Olympic Games.

Regardless of who Perdiccas was however, the nobles and the general population of Macedonia were Macedonians, distinctly different from the Greeks, and spoke a Macedonian language different from Greek. Even if the original Macedonian kings had Greek blood, through marriages with the local nobles they became mixed, and by the seventh generation (Alexander II), their Greek-ness became questionable. By the tenth generation (Alexander III of Macedon) the Greek part would have all but vanished. During the later turbulent centuries more people arrived in the Balkans, some as conquerors, while others as settlers. Some formed tribal states and temporary tribal alliances, but these were volatile and with time disappeared. It was not until the middle of the 19th century, after nationalism was introduced in Macedonia, that the Modern Macedonian nation was formed.

With the weakening of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century the Macedonians began to form a unique and separate nation different from their neighbors. This was a slow process due to lack of education and widespread poverty. This was also hampered by Bulgaria’s independence and its continuous involvement in Macedonian affairs. In time however, the Macedonian “intelligentsia” rebelled against Bulgarian propaganda asserting that Macedonians are not Bulgarians, and thus began distancing themselves from Bulgaria. With Misirkov’s work in 1903 the foundation for a new state, with its own history and language, was laid. This state was created in 1944, as one of the six constituent states/republics of Former Yugoslavia, and has existed uninterrupted ever since.

Literature:

• “Athens affirms the position about the name again” Nova Makedonija. 10 February 1993: 1-6.
• Brailsford, H.N. Macedonia: Its Races and their Future. New York: Arno Press & New York Times, 1971.
• Demosthenes, Public Orations. New York: Dutton, 1967.
• FAQ, Frequently Asked Questions About Macedonia. http://erc.msstate.edu/~vkire/faq/
• Hammond, N.G.L. The Macedonian State: The Origins, Institutions and History. Oxford: Clarendum Press, 1989.
• Herodotes, Histories. London: George Bell & Sons, 1877.
• Giannakos, Symeon. The Macedonian Question Re-examined: Implications for Balkan Security. Mediteranean Quarterly. Washington DC: Duke University Press, 1992.
• “Greek recognition of Macedonia with it’s name” Nova Makedonija 31 March 1993: 16. MANU, Council for Research into South Eastern Europe of the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Macedonia and it’s Relations with Greece. Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, 1993.
• Ministry of Foreign Relations of Macedonia. “Memorandum to the UN considering the name of Macedonia.” Skopje: Nova Makedonija, 5 Feb. 1993: 1-2.
• MWC, Macedonian World Congress. Report from the Macedonian World Congress. http://www.aubg.bg/~borce/macedonia/mwc.html.
• Plutarch, Lives. New York: Dutton, 1969, 3 vols.
• PMN, Pan Macedonian Network. Http://www.macedonia.com/.
• Ristevski, Blazhe. Krste Misirkov. Bitola: Misla, 1986.
• Starr, Chester G. A History of the Ancient World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965