Διάβασα σήμερα στο αρκετά ενημερωτικό blog Το Μακεδονικό Ζήτημα σήμερα μια αναδημοσίευση άρθρου απο την εφημερίδα Έθνος της κ. Αγγελικής Κωττή. Το άρθρο είχε θέμα την αναβίωση της αμφισβήτησης εκ μέρους συγκεκριμένης, μικρής μερίδας Ιστορικών και αρχαιολόγων, με κύριους εκφραστές σήμερα, τον γνωστό Αμερικάνο Ακαδημαϊκό Eugene Borza και της Ελληνίδας Καθηγήτριας του Πανεπιστημίου Αθηνών, Αρχαιολόγου κ. Όλγας Παλαγγιάς.

Ο κ. Borza και οι διφορούμενες απόψεις του περί της Ελληνικότητας των αρχαίων Μακεδόνων, μας έχει απασχολήσει σε αυτό το blog και παλαιότερα. Στην προκειμένη περίπτωση θα ασχοληθούμε με την τοποθέτηση πάνω στο θέμα της κ. Παλαγγιάς.

Στις 12/07/1998, είχε δημοσιευτεί στην εφημερίδα ‘Το Βήμα’, ένα άρθρο της κ. Χαράς Κιοσσέ, στο οποίο φιλοξενούσε τις απόψεις και ισχυρισμούς της κ. Παλαγγιάς. Αμέσως υπήρξαν ανταπαντήσεις στην ίδια εφημερίδα, με αντικρουόμενες απόψεις των Αρχαιολόγων και Ιστορικών ερευνητών. Ενδεικτικά αναφέρω το άρθρο του κ. Παναγιώτη Β. Φάκλαρη,  αναπληρωτή καθηγητή Κλασικής Αρχαιολογίας του ΑΠΘ και μέλος της πανεπιστημιακής ανασκαφής της Βεργίνας, την τοποθέτηση του κ. Ν. Μάρτη, γνωστού τέως υπουργού και θερμού υποστηρικτή της Ελληνικότητας της Αρχ. Μακεδονίας, καθώς και της έγκριτου αρχαιολόγου, επίκουρου καθηγήτριας της Κλασικής Αρχαιολογίας στο ΑΠΘ και μέλος της Ανασκαφής στη Βεργίνα, κ. Χρυσούλας Σαατσόγλου-Παλιαδέλη. Παράλληλα μπορείτε να διαβάσετε και την επιστολή της κ. Σ. Δρούγου, (σ. στο τέλος του link) Διευθύντριας της Ανασκαφής της Βεργίνας και Καθηγήτριας Κλασικής Αρχαιολογίας ΑΠΘ.

Αναδημοσιεύω το απόσπασμα-απάντηση της κ. Χρυσούλας Σαατσόγλου-Παλιαδέλη στην κ. Παλαγγιά, επειδή κατα την γνώμη μου πάντα, είναι η πιο εμπεριστατωμένη τοποθέτηση απο όσες διάβασα.

Οσοι πήραμε μέρος στην ανασκαφή της Μεγάλης Τούμπας στη Βεργίνα, και συνεχίζουμε την έρευνα στον αρχαιολογικό της χώρο, βρισκόμαστε συνεχώς αντιμέτωποι με ένα εξαιρετικά σημαντικό εύρημα, αλλά και με τις επιπτώσεις του, καθώς η τόλμη του Μανόλη Ανδρόνικου να το αντιμετωπίσει σφαιρικά ήταν φυσικό να προκαλέσει τις αναμενόμενες αντιδράσεις. Οι διαφορετικές απόψεις δεν αναιρούν ούτε τη γνώση ούτε την επιστημοσύνη του και η φυσική απουσία του δεν ανέστειλε ούτε την ανασκαφική δραστηριότητα ούτε την επιστημονική δράση μας στη Βεργίνα. Το κοινό, όμως, που διάβασε τις απόψεις της κ. Παλαγγιά στο άρθρο της κυρίας Κιοσσέ («Το Βήμα της Κυριακής», 12.8.98) για την τοιχογραφία του μεγάλου τάφου της Βεργίνας, ίσως πραγματικά ένιωσε ότι του «κλέβουν ένα μέρος του ονείρου».

Τα πράγματα όμως δεν είναι ακριβώς έτσι. Η άποψη της κ. Παλαγγιά δεν είναι, κατ’ αρχήν, νέα. Πρώτη, το 1980, η αμερικανίδα αρχαιολόγος Phyllis Lehmann αμφισβήτησε την απόδοση του μνημείου στον Φίλιππο Β’, αντιπροτείνοντας την ταύτιση του νεκρού του θαλάμου με τον Φίλιππο Γ’ Αρριδαίο, και εγκαινιάζοντας έτσι έναν επιστημονικό διάλογο που συνεχίζεται ως σήμερα. Ο Μανόλης Ανδρόνικος είχε πολλές φορές την ευκαιρία να απαντήσει αμέσως στις περισσότερες από αυτές, εκθέτοντας ακόμη αναλυτικότερα τα επιχειρήματα που τον οδηγούσαν στην προτεινόμενη απόδοση.

Από τη θέση του μελετητή της τοιχογραφίας, μπορώ να καταθέσω με βεβαιότητα πως λιγοστές από τις παρατηρήσεις της συναδέλφου ανταποκρίνονται στα εικονογραφικά στοιχεία της παράστασης, επηρεάζοντας, ως ένα βαθμό, και τις ερμηνείες της. Ο νεαρός Αλέξανδρος, για παράδειγμα, στο μέσον της τοιχογραφίας, φορεί ελληνικότατο, πορφυρό ­ καθότι διάδοχος ­ χιτωνίσκο και όχι χιτώνα ανατολίτικο, επηρεασμένο από την περσική ενδυμασία, ενώ ο ώριμος, θριαμβευτικός, γενειοφόρος ιππέας, που ετοιμάζεται να σκοτώσει (χωρίς λεοντή) το λιοντάρι, δεν μπορεί να ταυτισθεί με τον Φίλιππο Γ’ τον Αρριδαίο, όπως πρότεινε η συνάδελφος, καθώς γνωρίζουμε πως ήταν μόλις δύο χρόνια μεγαλύτερος από τον Αλέξανδρο. Επιπλέον, ανήμπορος για έντονη δραστηριότητα, μπορούσε, ενδεχομένως, να ιππεύει, μάλλον όμως αδυνατούσε να κυνηγά.

Ο κυνηγός με το δίχτυ δεν έχει μουστάκι, είναι πράγματι μελαψός (όπως συνήθως αποδίδονται στα περισσότερα ζωγραφικά έργα της αρχαιότητας οι ανδρικές μορφές), αλλά δεν είναι Ινδός ή Πέρσης. Η ιδιόμορφη ενδυμασία του (ίσως η διφθέρα των αρχαίων πηγών, που φορούσαν οι άνθρωποι της υπαίθρου) μάλλον τον ταυτίζει με νεαρό, αμούστακο, ηλιοκαμένο, ορεσίβιο Μακεδόνα, επειδή δεν υπάρχουν ενδυματολογικά παράλληλα που να ερμηνεύουν την καταγωγή του, κυρίως όμως επειδή κανένα εικονογραφικό στοιχείο της παράστασης δεν παραπέμπει στην Ανατολή. Το κυνήγι της τοιχογραφίας διαδραματίζεται στον ευρωπαϊκό χώρο, προφανώς, κάπου στη Μακεδονία παραπέμποντας σε ένα γεγονός που προηγείται της εκστρατείας του Αλεξάνδρου και ενισχύοντας έτσι τη χρονολόγηση του τάφου πριν από τον θάνατό του. (Τεχνητοί παράδεισοι, μεταφυτευμένα πλατύφυλλα δένδρα, μελαψοί μυστακοφόροι και άλλα συναφή δεν συμβάλλουν στην κατανόηση της παράστασης.)

Δεν κατανοώ, κατ’ αρχήν, τις υποθέσεις που ερμηνεύουν ορισμένα πολιτισμικά στοιχεία των αρχαίων Μακεδόνων, ως αποτελέσματα της εκστρατείας του Αλεξάνδρου στην Ανατολή, όταν είναι γνωστή από τον Ηρόδοτο η σχέση τους με τους Πέρσες, ήδη από τα τέλη του 6ου π.Χ. αι. Τέτοιοι θεσμοί, όπως το βασιλικό κυνήγι, για παράδειγμα, θα μπορούσαν να εισαχθούν (αν τελικά εισήχθησαν) στη μακεδονική αυλή πολύ νωρίτερα από τον Αλέξανδρο. Λιοντάρια, άλλωστε, υπήρχαν στη Μακεδονία πριν από τα τέλη του 4ου π.Χ. αι., όπως μαρτυρεί ο Ξενοφώντας στον Κυνηγετικό του και ο Παυσανίας στην Περιήγησή του, περιγράφοντας τον γνωστό άθλο του Θεσσαλού Πουλυδάμαντα, που είχε σκοτώσει με τα χέρια του, ως νέος Ηρακλής, ένα λιοντάρι στον Ολυμπο, στα τέλη του 5ου π.Χ. αι. Το κυνήγι τους ήταν γνωστό στον βορειοελλαδικό χώρο τουλάχιστον από τα χρόνια του βασιλιά Αρχελάου (413-399 π.Χ.), που εξέδωσε νομίσματα με λιοντάρι στην πίσω πλευρά, το οποίο δαγκώνει σπασμένο δόρυ (σαφής μαρτυρία για κυνήγι λιονταριού στη Μακεδονία ήδη από τα τέλη του 5ου π.Χ. αι.). Ο Διόδωρος ο Σικελιώτης αναφέρει πως ο ίδιος βασιλιάς δολοφονήθηκε κατά τη διάρκεια ενός προφανώς ανάλογου κυνηγιού.

Τον σημαντικό ρόλο του κυνηγιού για τη μακεδονική κοινωνία τον αντανακλά ανάγλυφα η περίπτωση του Κασσάνδρου, που, μη έχοντας ως τα τριάντα πέντε του κατορθώσει να σκοτώσει κάπρο χωρίς δίχτυ, ήταν ταπεινωτικά αναγκασμένος να μετέχει στα συμπόσια της μακεδονικής αυλής, καθισμένος και όχι ανακεκλιμένος, όπως οι άλλοι συμποσιαστές.

Η τοιχογραφία με το κυνήγι στην πρόσοψη του μεγάλου τάφου της Βεργίνας υπήρξε σαφώς πολιτική επιλογή εκείνου που φρόντισε με τόση επιμέλεια για την ταφή του νεκρού. Ο Κάσσανδρος δύσκολα θα διάλεγε ένα θέμα που ως τα 35 του μάλλον θα προσπαθούσε να ξεχάσει. Είναι εντελώς απίθανο, επομένως, να τον αναγνωρίσουμε σε κάποια από τις μορφές της τοιχογραφίας, όπως προτείνει η κ. Παλαγγιά, σε μια ετεροχρονισμένη και ανακριβή σχέση με το κυνήγι. Αντίθετα, ο νεαρός Αλέξανδρος είχε κάθε λόγο ­ στους ταραγμένους μήνες που ακολούθησαν τη δολοφονία του πατέρα του και τη δική του ανάρρηση στον θρόνο ­ να επιλέξει ένα τέτοιο θέμα, που τον εικόνιζε, μαζί με τον νεκρό βασιλιά, σε μια κατ’ εξοχήν σημαντική ­ για τη μακεδονική αυλή ­ δραστηριότητα.

Αν από την ερμηνεία της τοιχογραφίας προκύπτει ένα ακόμη επιχείρημα για την ταύτιση του νεκρού με τον Φίλιππο Β’, λυπούμαι να διαπιστώνω συνεχώς πως ­ ακόμη και ανεξάρτητα από την ερμηνεία της ­ όσοι από τους συναδέλφους αμφισβήτησαν την άποψη του Μανόλη Ανδρόνικου (ανάμεσά τους συγκαταλέγεται τώρα η κ. Παλαγγιά) δεν έλαβαν σοβαρά υπόψη τους το μέγιστο, κατά τη γνώμη μου, λογικό και αρχαιολογικό του επιχείρημα: η πρωτογενής ταφή που καταγράψαμε κατά τη διάρκεια της ανασκαφής δεν μπορεί με κανέναν τρόπο να αποδοθεί στον Φίλιππο Γ’, που εξετάφη από τον Κάσσανδρο, αρκετούς μήνες αργότερα από τον θάνατό του, για να ξαναταφεί (δευτερογενώς) μαζί με τη γυναίκα του, Ευρυδίκη, στις Αιγές.

Φαίνεται πως ο επιστημονικός διάλογος συχνά συγκροτείται από μοναχικούς μονολόγους, που κινούνται παράλληλα, χωρίς πουθενά να συναντώνται. Μοναχικά κείμενα, για μοναχικά περιοδικά, που απευθύνονται σε μοναχικούς αναγνώστες.

Εντέλει, είμαστε όλοι εκτεθειμένοι στην κρίση της διεθνούς επιστημονικής κοινότητας.

Το ευρύ κοινό μπορεί, εν τω μεταξύ, να διαφυλάσσει το όνειρό του.
Η κυρία Χρυσούλα Σαατσόγλου-Παλιαδέλη είναι επίκουρος καθηγήτρια της Κλασικής Αρχαιολογίας στο Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης και μέλος της Ανασκαφής στη Βεργίνα.

Tags: eugene borza, βεργίνα, δρούγου, μάρτης, όλγα παλαγγιά, ευγένιος μπόρζα, τάφος, φάκλαρης, φίλιππος β', χρυσούλα σαατσόγλου-παλιαδέλ�, tomb, vergina

Long long ago, before the days of Islam, Sikander e Aazem came to India. The Two Horned one whom you British people call Alexander the Great. He conquered the world, and was a very great man, brave and dauntless and generous to his followers. When he left to go back to Greece, some of his men did not wish to go back with him but preferred to stay here. Their leader was a general called Shalakash (i.e.: Seleucus). With some of his officers and men, he came to these valleys and they settled here and took local women, and here they stayed. We, the Kalash, the Black Kafir of the Hindu Kush, are the descendants of their children. Still some of our words are the same as theirs, our music and our dances, too; we worship the same gods. This is why we believe the Greeks are our first ancestors…

 (Statement made by a Kalash named Kazi Khushnawaz, “In the footsteps of Alexander the Great”, p.8.)

He [Alexander] had a vision for a world empires in which  the wealth and culture of the East would meld with the rationality and drive of the Greeks. He encouraged his veterans to marry Persian women in order to facilitate the integration of the two societies. He began to act more like an Eastern potentate than a Greek general, and his men grew weary of that.

 Encyclopaedia of invasions and conquests,  Davis, McKenzie and Haris, 2006, page 20

One text from Hippolytus_of_Rome, author of the first centuries AC and…a saint.

Its translation in English

HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME TREATISE ON CHRIST AND ANTICHRIST.

Quote:

24. Then, after the lioness, he sees a “second beast like a bear,” and that denoted the Persians. For after the Babylonians, the Persians held the sovereign power And in saving that there were “three ribs in the mouth of it,” he pointed to three nations, viz., the Persians, and the Medes, and the Babylonians; which were also represented on the image by the silver after the gold. Then (there was) “the third beast, a leopard,” which meant the Greeks. For after the Persians, Alexander of Macedon obtained the sovereign power on subverting Darius, as is also shown by the brass on the image. And in saying that it had “four wings of a fowl,” he taught us most clearly how the kingdom of Alexander was partitioned. For in speaking of “four heads,” he made mention of four kings, viz., those who arose out of that (kingdom). For Alexander, when dying, partitioned out his kingdom into four divisions

.

Quote:

28. The golden head of the image and the lioness denoted the Babylonians; the shoulders and arms of silver, and the bear, represented the Persians and Medes; the belly and thighs of brass, and the leopard, meant the Greeks, who held the sovereignty from Alexander’s time; the legs of iron, and the beast dreadful and terrible, expressed the Romans, who hold the sovereignty at present;

From Ioannis Chrysostomos about Daniel’s fragment in page 893.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Θα καταλάβετε καλύτερα αν ακούσετε αυτό το όραμα που μας διηγήθηκε παραβολικά ο προφήτης αποκαλώντας κριό τον βασιλέα των Περσών Δαρείο, τράγο τον βασιλέα των Ελλήνων, εννοώ τον Αλέξανδρο τον Μακεδόνα, τέσσερα κέρατα τους διαδόχους του και τελευταίο κέρατο τον Αντίοχο. ”

Translation: “You will understand better if you hear this vision which was narrated parabolically by the Prophet, by calling ram the Persian king Darius, billy-goat the King of Greeks i mean Alexander the Macedonian, 4 horns his successors and last horn Antiochos“

OXFORD DICTIONARY OF THE CLASSICAL WORLD, Page 441
2005, 2007, Oxford University Press Macedonia links the Balkans and the Greek peninsula. Four important routes converge on the Macedonian plain. Hesiod considered the ‘Macedones’ to be an outlying branch of the Greek-speaking tribes, with a distinctive dialect of their own. He gave their habitat as “Pieria and Olympus”. A new dynasty, the Temenids, ruling the Macedonians, founded their early capital at Aegae c.650 BC, and thereafter gained control of the coastal plain as far as the Axius. The Persian occupation of Macedonia 512-479 BC brought benefits. Xerxes gave Alexander (1) I control over western Upper Macedonia; and after Xer¬xes’ flight Alexander gained territory west of the Strymon. His claim to be a Temenid, descended from Heracles and related to the royal house of Argos, was recognized at Olympia; he issued a fine royal coinage and profited from the export of ship-timber.
The potential of the Macedonian kingdom was realized by Philip II. By defeating the northern barbarians and incorporating the Greek-speaking Upper Macedonians he created a superb army (see ARMIES, GREEK), which was supported economically by other peoples who were brought by conquest into the enlarged kingdom: Illyrians, Paeonians, and Thracians—with their own non-Greek languages— and Chalcidians (see CHALCIDICE) and Bottiaeans, both predominantly Greek-speaking, He created a united kingdom from many tribes and nations by a policy of tolerance and assimilation. His son Alexander (2) the Great, inheriting the strongest state in eastern Europe, carried his conquests to the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Later the conquered territor¬ies split up into kingdoms ruled mainly by Macedonian royal families, which fought against one another and contended for the original Macedonian kingdom. In 167 BC Rome defeated Macedonia and split it into four republics; and in 146 BC it was constituted a Roman province. Thereafter its history merged with that of the Roman empire.From Philip II onwards the Macedonian court was a LEADING CENTRE OF GREEK CULTURE, and the policies of Alexander and his Successors (”Dia-dochi”) spread the Greek-based ‘Hellenistic’ culture in the east, which continued to flourish for centuries after the collapse of Macedonian power. See COLONIZATION, HELLENISTIC ; HELLENISM and HELLENIZATION.”

The peace of Perdiccas was disturbed for some years by the ambitious designs of his youngest brother, Philip, who
aspired to the throne. In the beginning of his reign, mdeed, Perdiccas found himself surrounded by suspicious friends,
and open foes. The Thraciaris, and other barbarous nations, looked upon his kingdom with an envious eye; the Persians
affected to treat him as their vassal; and the Athenians menaced the safety of his throne by their colonies and allies on
the sea-coast. Perdiccas amused the latter with a show of friendship; but when he found that they treated him as an
inferior, he resolved to check their progress in the vicinity of his dominions.
When a monarch is disposed for war, occasion will seldom be wanted to find some pretext to justify the commencement
of the strife. Thus it was with Perdiccas. The city of Epidamnum, distracted by seditions at home, and threatened by
foreign foes, was in the utmost distress. The weaker party had called the Illyrians to their assistance, by which the government was so reduced, that they sent to the Corcyreans and Corinthians for aid. The Corinthians sent relief to Epidamnum, which the Corcyreans resented, and sent a fleet on the coast of Macedonia, in order to compel the Epidamnians to submit to whatever terms they thought proper to prescribe.
The Athenians took part in these proceedings, and Perdiccas embraced the opportunity of declaring war against that state.  The first measure of Perdiccas was, to persuade the Chalcidians to abandon their sea-ports, and to inhabit and fortify the city of Olynthus. Enraged at such a proceeding, the Athenians determined to revenge themselves on those who had deserted them, and on the instigator of their defection, Perdiccas.
To this end, they sent Agnon with a fleet, and a large army on board, to besiege Potidea, and to reduce the Chalcidians; but the plague infecting his army, he was obliged to return without accomplishing his purpose. He left Potidea as he found it, blocked up by a small army the Athenians had there before, and which eventually proved sufficient for its reduction. By the end of winter, the Potideans were so much reduced, that they stipulated with the Athenian generals, Xenophon, Hestiodorus, and Callimachus, to retire from the city, B. c. 431.
Another cause which tended to widen the breach between the Athenians and Perdiccas was as follows. One of the

The breach between the Athenians and Perdiccas became
wider and wider. On his part, he intrigued not only with
the Chalcidians, but with the Potideans and Bottiseans, subjects
of Athens in his neighbourhood, for the purpose of engaging
them to revolt; while on theirs, they incited the powerful
sovereign of Thrace, Sitalces, to dethrone him, and to
bestow his kingdom on Amyntas, who had been expelled by
Perdiccas his uncle from his inheritance. principalities of Upper Macedonia was the appanage of Philip, younger brother of Perdiccas, and another was the inheritance of Derdas, cousin to the royal family. About the time of the Corcyrean war, Perdiccas proposed to deprive both his brother and his cousin of their territories, and the Athenian administration thought proper to take those princes under its protection, and support them against the intended injury. Perdiccas resented this as a breach of the ancient alliance, and perhaps this was the chief motive .of his inciting the Chalcidians to revolt, and of his hostility to the Athenians. The ruin of Perdiccas seemed inevitable. Sitalces chose the winter for the invasion of Macedonia; at which season he put himself at the head of a large army, and with Amyntas in his train, he directed his march for the inland district of Macedonia, which had been the appanage of Philip, father of Amyntas. Here the young prince still had friends, and the towns of Gortynia and Atalanta opened their gates to his protector. Perdiccas trembled for the event. Weakened by civil war with the princes of his family, he was utterly unequal to meet the Thracian army in battle. He attended upon its motions only with his cavalry, while his people sought refuge in fortified towns, or in the mountains, woods, and marshes.
The first opposition that Sitalces encountered was from the town of Eidomene, which he took by assault. He next attacked Europus ; but unskilled in, and unprovided for «eges, he there failed. The Macedonian horse now made some
charges upon the army, and produced some impression ; but being always in the end overpowered, they soon desisted from their efforts. All the open country was, therefore, at the mercy of the Thracian prince; the provinces of Mygdonia,
Grestonia, Anthemaus, and ^Emathia, were desolated. It had been concerted with the Athenian government, that
an Athenian fleet should co-operate with the Thracians: but it was so little expected that Sitalces would undertake his enterprise in the winter, that this fleet was not sent. As soon, however, as it was known that he had actually entered Macedonia, an embassy was dispatched to make excuses for the omission, with presents for the Thracian monarch. Gratified by this attention, Sitalces now sent a part of his army into Chalcidice, and the ravage of that country was added to the destruction of the internal provinces. The people, however, found security in their towns ; for the whole force of Thrace was of little avail against a Grecian town moderately fortified.
One stroke of refined policy on the part of Perdiccas brought the unhallowed hope of the Athenians to the ground
and saved Macedonia from destruction. The rigour of the season having paralyzed the efforts of the Thracians for a
brief period, Perdiccas embraced the opportunity for negotiation. He found means to communicate with Seuthes, nephew and principal favourite of the Thracian monarch, to whom he offered Stratonice his sister in marriage, with a large portion. The intrigue succeeded. After Macedonia had been trodden under foot by the Thracians for a whole month, and mischief had been done beyond calculation, Sitalces, led his forces home without accomplishing the purpose for which the expedition was undertaken. A treaty of amity followed between the two monarchs, and the Macedonian princess gave her hand to Seuthes.
Delivered from this exigency, in order to be revenged on the Athenians, Perdiccas allied himself with the Spartans in
the first Peloponnesian war, B. c. 429 ; and much of the success of Brasidas was owing to his active co-operation; the
particulars of which belong to the history of the Grecians. The success which the Spartans obtained over the Athenians
was advantageous to Perdiccas. It inclined the Athenians to court his favour, notwithstanding the mutual injuries
they had inflicted upon each other. Perdiccas was disposed to favour their views; he chose, indeed, rather to conclude a
peace with Athens, than to throw himself entirely into the arms of his new allies, B. c. 423.
The fidelity of Perdiccas, however, was soon suspected by the Athenians. They charged him first with treachery in
not having efficiently assisted Nicias in the battle of Amphipoiis, and eventually they ordered a body of horse to be
transported to Methone, from whence they made inroads into Macedonia, and devastated some parts of the country. Nothing more is recorded of the reign of Perdiccas. He died B. c. 413, after reigning twenty-three years, leaving his
kingdom to his son.

History of the Macedonians By Edward Farr

By some authorities, Archelaus is branded with the twofold stigma of base birth and sanguinary crime. These charges, however, rest upon slender authority. It is more satisfactorily ascertained that he was a prince of eminent talents,
and that the kingdom of Macedonia was more indebted to him than to any of its preceding1 monarchs, for the advance
in all that was truly glorious. To extend civilization, and to provide for the defence of his kingdom, were his absorbing
cares. To attain the first of these objects, it was necessary to begin by securing the second ; and he, therefore, increased
and disciplined his military force, formed magazines of arms and stores, and fortified some of his principal towns. The
only war in which Archelaus was engaged, was with the city of Pynda, in the province of Pieria, which had revolted
from him. That place was compelled to surrender, and its inhabitants were exiled from Pynda, and sent to dwell sixty
miles further from the sea-shore, that they might not easily receive succour from Athens, or any other of the Grecian
states.

Undisturbed by foreign and domestic foes, Archelaus ardently cultivated the arts of peace. Agriculture was encouraged,
and an invaluable benefit was conferred on the kingdom, by the formation of roads to connect distant districts.
Learning, literature, and art, found in him an admirer, and a munificent patron. Socrates was invited to his court, and
Euripides became his guest. The celebrated Zeuxis, also, attracted by his liberality and courtesy, adorned the royal
palace with some of the productions of his matchless pencil. Archelaus, moreover, instituted games, in imitation of southern Greece, dedicated to Jupiter and the Muses, and hearing the name of the Olympian.
In the midst of all this splendour, Archelaus perished by the hand of a traitor. Craterus, who is said to have been his
favourite, prompted by ambition, or revenge for personal dishonour, or by both united, conspired against him, and slew
him, after he had”reigned thirteen years. The nameless crime which led to the death of Archelaus, shows how impotent civilization is to save man from the corruptions of a fallen nature. He exhibited, in all his actions, a more enlightened mind than any of his ancestors ; yet he was equally deficient in moral conduct. The ” works of the flesh” were the glory of the heathen world. Too frequently, they were looked upon as godlike actions, and the shameful indulgence of them was hence practised, especially by those who had power on the earth. Their very gods and goddesses were represented as beings with like passions as themselves, and some systems of religion taught that the delights of heaven consisted in these things. A paradise of sensual gratifications was held to be the acme of bliss by some philosophers.
They had no notion of the ” beauty of holiness,” and of the delights that are to be found in the ” way of righteousness.”
The Bible, and the Bible alone, teaches such exalted doctrines, and the experience of the faithful proves them true.
The murder of Archelaus, says Heeren, was followed by a stormy period, wrapped in obscurity: the unsettled state of
the succession raised up many pretenders to the throne, each of whom easily found the means of supporting his claims,
either in some of the neighbouring tribes, or in one of the Grecian republics. Craterus was the first who usurped the
throne of Macedonia; but he held his station for the brief space of four days only, at the expiration of which time he
met with the death he had inflicted on his prince. He fell by the hands of violence.

History of the Macedonians By Edward Farr

Nothing is known concerning the actions of Tyrimmas.  He possessed the crown of Macedonia forty-five years, and
then bequeathed it to his son.

Bibliography:

History of the Macedonians By Edward Farr

Coenus (koinos) reigned for an equal length of time, during which no events are recorded, and then left his throne to his son.

Bibliography:

History of the Macedonians By Edward Farr